Fact-value distinctions
An acquaintance invited me to join the Facebook group titled The word “gay” is not a synonym for “stupid”. If this is a normative statement, I agree. But I cannot. I do not believe that “is” ought to be a synonym for “ought”. The word “gay” ought not be a synonym for “stupid”, but it has become one. If I were editing someone’s writing and they used the word in that usage, I would correct it. The word “is” serves a number of roles - existence (e.g. “God just is!”), predication (e.g. “John is left-handed”) and identity (e.g. “But that man is the Pope!”). But I do not believe that is and ought should be confused. I believe Paris is in France. I believe China ought to conform to international human rights expectations.
Not following this principle can lead to madness like “God says the Earth is 6,000 years old, and so it is”. Sorry to burst the bubble, but the Earth is significantly older than that. I do not think that water boiling at a hundred degrees centigrade is immoral or unjust - it just is. A polygamous person who says they “don’t believe in monogamy” does not claim that monogamy does not exist, they think that it’s not the only way or perhaps not the best way to a fulfilled life. Is-ought distinctions are everywhere.
Gay ought not to be a synonym for stupid, but it is. Ought out not to be a synonym for is, but it is. We should fight to change both, but we do that not by claiming that they are not, but rather that they ought not.
Does this mean that I’m a Humean regarding facts and values? I’m not necessarily convinced about that. I certainly agree that is/ought is an important distinciton. I have seen some philosophers question the fact/value distinction, claiming that hypothesis selection for scientific investigation is based on value judgements. Call me flippant, but so what? That only seems to show that people make ‘is’ statements based on an inner subjectivity. I’d like to be wrong about fact/value distinctions - I want to see the reasoning for conflating the two. If there were no things in the world that have any kind of moral duty or perception, then there would be no experiences that would be required for the convictions that lead to “ought” statements appearing. There would be experiences that would - if humans were to exist in such a world - lead to “is” statements.
If you agree, perhaps you’d join the Facebook group The word “is” ought not be a synonym for the word “ought”.
