An ‘Ought’ From An ‘Is’?
In this shallow dive, we’ll be looking at how The Big Answer (TBA) solves what’s known as Hume’s Law, which is that you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. That is, you can’t make a factual statement about “the way things are”, and from that draw a logical conclusion about “how things should be”. A statement about “what is” is objective and descriptive, while a statement about “how things ought to be” is inherently subjective and prescriptive, and there is no bridge between these realms.
TBA explains why beings that value the qualities objectively necessary for existence (the core qualities, or TCQs) “is” what we “ought” to see. Let me explain further.
Hume pointed out that every “should” statement, such as “you should do X”, or “society should value Y”, is ultimately based on our subjective values. For example, saying you should eat your veggies because that will objectively keep you healthier, only makes sense if you subjectively value “staying healthy”.
You might say that staying healthy is good because it objectively helps achieve the goal of living longer, but that depends on you subjectively valuing “living longer”. If you say the goal of living longer is good because it objectively lets you get the most out of your life, that only matters if you subjectively value “getting the most out of your life”, and so on and so on.
So while we can see that there are indeed things that objectively get you closer to, or further from a goal, there is no way to trace the goals themselves back to some ultimate, objective fact; they only ever trace back to a subjectively held value. Does this not undermine The Big Answer’s claim that it provides an objective explanation for “good” and “bad’? Let’s explore that!
First, TCQs are not objectively or automatically good. Before any living thing existed, there was nothing in the universe that cared about anything or had any subjective preferences. TCQs still existed, but they weren’t good or bad. TCQs only become good when something values existence.
If someone subjectively values non-existence (e.g. someone with an incurable disease that causes them extreme pain), that would make TCQs “bad” and the goal would be to undermine them.
However, if you value anything (art, public transit, family, empathy, etc.) and, further to this, you value the values themselves and don’t want to see them disappear, this logically necessitates the existence of a valuer to hold those values. Therefore, for any value system to be sustained, existence itself must be held as a foundational, prerequisite value. A value system that undermines the existence of its own valuer is, by definition, self-defeating.
Thus, by extension, any and every value system must prioritize TCQs above all other values.
This is why, as explained further in the shallow dive “Is TBA Objective?”, our subjective values were moulded through evolution to support TCQs. Those that had subjective values that objectively undermined TCQs objectively ceased to exist, while those that had subjective values that objectively supported TCQs were objectively more likely to continue existing. Those with value systems that better supported TCQs were even more likely to continue existing, handing down those value systems either genetically or socially to subsequent generations.
The result is that what we see today is exactly what we’d expect to see - individuals, cultures, religions, governments, etc., whose subjective value systems have become, on the whole, reasonably aligned to the objective qualities of TBA. (This process of aligning more and more to TCQs is still far from complete! And we’re using a lot of trial and, unfortunately, a lot of error to get there!)
So to recap: the concepts of “good” and “bad” don’t objectively exist in reality independently of conscious, aware beings. Conscious beings can subjectively value anything, including non-existence. And subjective values are, indeed, subjective. However, those subjective values, and the concepts of good and bad, are sculpted by evolution to align with and support the objective qualities of TBA more and more over time.
Does TBA prove you can get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’? No. Instead, it explains that in a universe that selects for the long-term viability of value systems, we would expect that any collection of subjective ‘oughts’ adopted by successful people, relationships, and cultures ‘is’ aligned with the Core Qualities objectively necessary to exist. In other words, this “is” exactly what we “ought” to see!
