I’ve concluded that the “Is-ought” correlation (not the philosophical problem) is fraught after my kerfuffle with how one moves from is-ness to ought-ness. Ought is derived from personal emotions (on either extremes), and influence from social circles.
The seemingly real pressure one feels from ought isn’t an offspring of “is-ness” but rather psychological framings on the natural environment passed down from those that have been in power (everything).
Morality is not the mark, nay! The insidious beast here is culture!
Culture is a set of rules and regulations that serves institutions by depriving people of their innate way of being by saying, “here you do this now”.
Life demands with no malice, critically evaluate societal norms... (read more)
Hi Viliam,
Thanks for your response! I’m going to reveal a few trap cards (Yu-Gi-Oh ref! Hope we can keep playing): Strawman and Circular Reasoning!
Strawman: People not in power “resisting bad demands” has nothing to do with my argument, which is that morality is irrational because it’s “derived from personal emotions (on either extremes), and influence from social circles.”
Circular Reasoning: You’re also concluding that due to the “validity of some people not in power” “resisting bad demands,” morality is not merely the demands of those in power.