There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is a discussion forum topic for the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.


There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

There is no "Problem of Evil" because there is no evil.

All there is, is what is.

Concepts of 'was' & 'will be' are relativistic subsets of 'is', derived by combining 'is' with the subjective illusion that is time.

To say or think, "I should be choosing X but I am choosing Y", is meaningless nonsense.

To say or think, "I ought to be choosing A but am choosing B", is meaningless nonsense.

When it comes to your choices, you always get exactly what you want, meaning what you choose. And everything else is what it is.

There are no shoulds. There are no oughts.

All there is and will be, is what is and will be.



---
The book is available for purchase from all major book retailers in both ebook and hardcover format.

[Surabhi Rani]

Very straightforward thinking! This is the power of free will in a human being.

[PuerAzaelis]

There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

There is no "Problem of Evil" because there is no evil.

All there is, is what is.

It is objectively wrong to torture children for fun.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

There is no "Problem of Evil" because there is no evil.

All there is, is what is.

It is objectively wrong to [...]

I don't understand what you mean by the phrase "objectively wrong". Can you define that term ("objective wrong")?

Also, may I ask you to post a reply in the topic, Do you agree with everything in the book, "In It Together"? If not, what is the first sentence with which you disagree?

That will let me know all the sentences before the first disagreement with which you therefore agree, so I will have more agreed premises and common ground to use to understand the context of what you are saying.

[hsimone]

This is something I’m understanding and agreeing with more (thanks to you!). One example that comes to mind is when I make a decision, I just make it. I ‘should’ or ‘should not’ have to feel a certain way about that decision. I made it based on what would work for my family.

Of course, I have feelings for many things and sometimes a decision I make might leave me feeling a certain way. However, there’s something freeing about not having to have the mindset that I ‘should’ or ‘should not’ feel a certain emotion toward it. Does that make sense?

About the evil statement. That one throws me for a loop every time I see it. I think it’s because I am reminded of all those who abuse others, especially young children and babies. Then, I remind myself that I personally don’t like labeling people as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ (don’t get me started about Santa Claus ), so then I think maybe there isn’t evil, but there are those who need extra help and aren’t getting the support they need. Then, this leads to poor/bad choices, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are evil.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is something I’m understanding and agreeing with more (thanks to you!). One example that comes to mind is when I make a decision, I just make it. I ‘should’ or ‘should not’ have to feel a certain way about that decision. I made it based on what would work for my family.

Of course, I have feelings for many things and sometimes a decision I make might leave me feeling a certain way. However, there’s something freeing about not having to have the mindset that I ‘should’ or ‘should not’ feel a certain emotion toward it. Does that make sense?

About the evil statement. That one throws me for a loop every time I see it.

Thank you for your reply and sharing your thoughts!

The way I see it, saying "there is no evil" is the same as saying "there is no shoulds and no oughts".

To me, saying something that happened in the past was 'evil' is the same as saying that it 'should not' have happened or that it 'ought not' to have happened. In other words, calling things 'evil' is simply another way to say they aren't the way they 'should' be. I think it would be an understatement to even say one leads to the other because to me it seems like they are the same thing.

I think maybe there isn’t evil, but there are those who need extra help and aren’t getting the support they need. Then, this leads to poor/bad choices, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are evil.

I like that.

It reminds me of this quote by Marianne Williamson: "See all human behavior as one two things: either love, or a call for love."

[hsimone]

This is something I’m understanding and agreeing with more (thanks to you!). One example that comes to mind is when I make a decision, I just make it. I ‘should’ or ‘should not’ have to feel a certain way about that decision. I made it based on what would work for my family.

Of course, I have feelings for many things and sometimes a decision I make might leave me feeling a certain way. However, there’s something freeing about not having to have the mindset that I ‘should’ or ‘should not’ feel a certain emotion toward it. Does that make sense?

About the evil statement. That one throws me for a loop every time I see it.

Thank you for your reply and sharing your thoughts!

The way I see it, saying "there is no evil" is the same as saying "there is no shoulds and no oughts".

To me, saying something that happened in the past was 'evil' is the same as saying that it 'should not' have happened or that it 'ought not' to have happened. In other words, calling things 'evil' is simply another way to say they aren't the way they 'should' be. I think it would be an understatement to even say one leads to the other because to me it seems like they are the same thing.

That's actually an interesting way of looking at it. I've never thought about it that way.

I think maybe there isn’t evil, but there are those who need extra help and aren’t getting the support they need. Then, this leads to poor/bad choices, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are evil.

I like that.

It reminds me of this quote by Marianne Williamson: "See all human behavior as one two things: either love, or a call for love."

Thank you!

I've never heard of that quote before, but I absolutely love it and agree!

[abstactlemon]

At the end of the day humans are the ones that chose what to value and how much to value those things. And we get angry if people don’t put the same amount of value on the same amount of things.

[Brenda Creech]

If we have been given free will, which I believe we have, then how can there be no 'ought?' If everything is what it is then why have we been given free will? With that free will we have choices, or should I say 'oughts.' When we believe we 'ought' to be doing a certain thing but choose to do something else, we had a choice to make that decision. So if we can choose what we do or do not, isn't that an 'is-ought problem?' According to the book, if there is no 'ought' then everything is what it is. If that were true why would we have choices? Now, I have even confused myself!

[mrlefty0706]

This is one topic that I do not agree with you. When I was raising my daughters and they did something wrong I would sit them down and talk to them about what they did wrong and what they ought to have done. For example, if they went to a friends house and told me they would be home by 9 p.m. and they came home at 11 p.m. I would be upset with them and remind them that they said they would be home by 9 p.m. I would tell them that they ought to be honest with me and if they had a reason to disobey me then they ought to have called and asked me if they could come home at 11 p.m.

When Jesus was discussing the ten commandments with His disciples He told them to love their neighbor and they should not kill another human being. There were no other acceptable explanation. I doubt he used the word ought but I can picture the nuns that taught at my Catholic elementary school that would scold or punish students that did not pay attenion in class. I recall that the nuns would say to the guilty students that they ought to have behaved differently since they knew the rules.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If we have been given free will, which I believe we have, then how can there be no 'ought?'

I don't understand your question. In fact, the reverse question comes to mind for me:

For example what does it mean for you to say, "I have the choice between A and B, and ought to be choosing A, but I am choosing B."

When we believe we 'ought' to be doing a certain thing but choose to do something else, we had a choice to make that decision.

What does it mean to believe you "ought" to be making a different choice than you are making?

When it comes to your choices, you always get exactly what you want, meaning you what you choose.

I don't think it makes sense to fail to unconditionally accept what one doesn't control and cannot change, but to me it seems to make even less sense to not accept what one does control--because then it is exactly how you want to be (meaning for how you choose it for it to be).

There's even less sense to give up inner peace by resenting things for being the way they are when you are choosing for them to be that way; right?

According to the book, if there is no 'ought' then everything is what it is. If that were true why would we have choices? Now, I have even confused myself!

It is what it is, and if you have a choice, then it is what you choose for it to be. In that case, it is what is, and it is what it is because you chose for it to be that way.

[Brenda Creech]

If we have been given free will, which I believe we have, then how can there be no 'ought?'

I don't understand your question. In fact, the reverse question comes to mind for me:

For example what does it mean for you to say, "I have the choice between A and B, and ought to be choosing A, but I am choosing B."

It would mean I wanted to do A, but I was doing B to help or please someone else. But it wouldn't be what I wanted to do, so how could it be that I got exactly what I wanted? I might have chosen B, but I didn't choose it for ME, I chose it for others.

When we believe we 'ought' to be doing a certain thing but choose to do something else, we had a choice to make that decision.

What does it mean to believe you "ought" to be making a different choice than you are making?

It is what it is, and if you have a choice, then it is what you choose for it to be. In that case, it is what is, and it is what it is because you chose for it to be that way.

When it comes to your choices, you always get exactly what you want, meaning you what you choose.

I don't think it makes sense to fail to unconditionally accept what one doesn't control and cannot change, but to me it seems to make even less sense to not accept what one does control--because then it is exactly how you want to be (meaning for how you choose it for it to be).

There's even less sense to give up inner peace by resenting things for being the way they are when you are choosing for them to be that way; right?

According to the book, if there is no 'ought' then everything is what it is. If that were true why would we have choices? Now, I have even confused myself!

[/quote]

What does it mean to believe you "ought" to be making a different choice than you are making?

When it comes to your choices, you always get exactly what you want, meaning you what you choose.

I don't think it makes sense to fail to unconditionally accept what one doesn't control and cannot change, but to me it seems to make even less sense to not accept what one does control--because then it is exactly how you want to be (meaning for how you choose it for it to be).

There's even less sense to give up inner peace by resenting things for being the way they are when you are choosing for them to be that way; right?

According to the book, if there is no 'ought' then everything is what it is. If that were true why would we have choices? Now, I have even confused myself!

It is what it is, and if you have a choice, then it is what you choose for it to be. In that case, it is what is, and it is what it is because you chose for it to be that way.
[/quote]

[Brenda Creech]

If we have been given free will, which I believe we have, then how can there be no 'ought?'

I don't understand your question. In fact, the reverse question comes to mind for me:

For example what does it mean for you to say, "I have the choice between A and B, and ought to be choosing A, but I am choosing B."

When we believe we 'ought' to be doing a certain thing but choose to do something else, we had a choice to make that decision.

What does it mean to believe you "ought" to be making a different choice than you are making?

When it comes to your choices, you always get exactly what you want, meaning you what you choose.

I don't think it makes sense to fail to unconditionally accept what one doesn't control and cannot change, but to me it seems to make even less sense to not accept what one does control--because then it is exactly how you want to be (meaning for how you choose it for it to be).

There's even less sense to give up inner peace by resenting things for being the way they are when you are choosing for them to be that way; right?
Regarding your questions and statements above:
1. It means I am consciously making a choice to do something because it is the right thing to do when I would rather be making the choice to do something I really want to do.

2, I disagree that when it comes to choices we always get what we want, If our choice is to do something for someone else when we really have something we want to do for ourself we don't get what we want. sometimes we 'ought' to make a sacrifice.

3. I agree there is less sense to give up inner peace by resenting things for being the way they are, but sometimes there is greater inner peace when you sacrifice your wants to help others.

According to the book, if there is no 'ought' then everything is what it is. If that were true why would we have choices? Now, I have even confused myself!

It is what it is, and if you have a choice, then it is what you choose for it to be. In that case, it is what is, and it is what it is because you chose for it to be that way.

Ok, I agree that it is what it is because you choose for it to be because of a choice you made; but that doesn't make it what you wanted it to be necessarily, does it?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Ok, I agree that it is what it is because you choose for it to be because of a choice you made; but that doesn't make it what you wanted it to be necessarily, does it?

I think it does. Perhaps I can best illustrate why with an example:

Imagine you have the choice between A and B. If you choose A, then A is, and B is not; and it is what it is which is A. If you choose B, then B is, and A is not; and it is what it is which is B.

As I use the terms, if you have a choice between A and B, you get exactly want, meaning what you choose. If you choose/want B, you get B. If you choose/want A, you get A.

There is a great inner peace that comes with thinking--and knowing--that we are always getting exactly what we want (i.e. choose). There is a great loving inner peace that comes with being able to honestly and proudly say, "I do only what I want to do, and I don't ever do what I don't want to do."

Likewise, there is a loss of inner peace that comes with any illusion we are not getting we want when it comes to our choices, such as the illusion of 'ought' or 'should'.

These inner-peace-stealing illusions can come in many forms, and often as a form of self-deception. The textbook alcoholic might say, "I want to maintain my sobriety, but I need a drink; I have to have a drink." I say that's all nonsense, and that kind of nonsense makes the truly simple seem falsely complex.

Alternatively, he might with terrible inner-peace-stealing shame say, "I ought to not drink, as he lift the drink to his mouth." I say that's all nonsense, and that kind of nonsense makes the truly simple seem falsely complex.

He might say, "I don't want to take a drink right now, but I am slave to the alcohol," as he lifts glass to his mouth. To the degree he is right, he lacks what I call spiritual freedom.

He might say, "I don't want to take a comforting drink right now, but I am prisoner to the comfort to the alcohol," as he lifts the glass to his mouth. To the degree he is right, then he lacks what I call spiritual freedom.

But, in an important sense, as I explain the book, such a lack of spiritual freedom is always an illusion. Voltaire said, "Man is free at the moment he choose to be."

As humans, we are very good at generating all sorts of smoke and mirrors. These deceiving smoke and mirrors make the simple seem complex. Those deceiving smoke and mirrors can make the logically undeniable seem counter-intuitive or somehow untrue. Those many smoke and mirrors can make it seem like we are not getting what we want (i.e. choose) when it comes to our choices, even though we absolutely do. Those kind of deceiving smoke and mirrors can make even the most heavenly heaven seem like a hell. Nightmares don't need to be real to torture us, and--I believe--they never are.

The simple reality is that when it comes to our choices we get exactly what we want, meaning what we choose, and with everything, it is what it is. Nothing real is worth resenting. Nothing unchangeable 'ought' to be different than it unchangeably is, so much so that I think of the word 'ought' itself as meaningless nonsense, just one of many unreal nightmarish smoke and mirrors.


Thank you for your intriguing and thought-provoking question!

[Donna Walker 1]

"There is no "Problem of Evil" because there is no evil."

Every time I see this statement, I am perplexed. We talk a lot about choice here. The choice to make good or bad decisions. Sexually abused children do not have a choice to avoid the "evil acts" they experience. The acts done to them are the choice of someone else, who, in my mind, has to be evil to enjoy doing those things to children. That's not a cry for love by the perpetrator. I can't even chalk that one off as a mental illness. Its evil. Pure and simple. Therefore, evil must exist. This is but one example. 

In trying to make this make sense in my head, because this book is a real head-scratcher. Say, if we all had 100 percent control over what happened in our lives based on our own choices, then it is possible that evil could not exist. However, while others have the ability to make choices for us, there is so much room for abuse, and that, in my mind, is evil.