ruby sparks
Contributor
But still, since you think I'm making some kind of error, could you explain what it is - not vaguely, but show me the error?
It would help me in trying to answer that if I could even work out what it was you were trying to get at half the time. As it is, I strongly suggest something dodgy.
This for example:
In the way that after considering the matter, it is not reasonable to object to moral assessments based on information about non-moral matters to say that an 'ought' doesn't follow from an 'is', or that moral assessments do not logically followed from information described using only nonmoral terms.
But let me go with an example.
Suppose that Bob accepts that there is very good evidence that any human with ordinary color vision would see this ball as red, under ordinary lighting conditions, and on the basis of that, he reckons that the ball is probably red. Bob rejects the idea that he is committing any fallacy in making that assessment.
Bob also accepts that there is very good evidence that any human with an ordinary moral sense would find the kidnappings, rapes and murders committed by Ted Bundy (as described here), very immoral. Now, when Alice uses that information as evidence that the actions in question were indeed very immoral, Bob objects and says that Alice is incurring the is/ought fallacy, because it does not follow from the premise that any human with an ordinary moral sense would find the kidnappings, rapes and murders committed by Ted Bundy (as described here), very immoral, that the actions were indeed very immoral.
One of my aims is to get readers to realize that Bob is making a mistake, more precisely if Alice is committing a fallacy for the stated reason, then so is Bob with his color assessment, and for the same reason (roughly; one might raise implicit premises as an objection, but that can be properly dealt with too). Note that saying that color is somehow different from morality or that there is an objective fact of the matter would miss the point. The question is about what follows from what, and whether these are cases of making fallacious assessments, or else cases in which one is not deriving the assessment by means of deductive logic but in some other way, and that is not itself a fallacy.
I have no idea what your underlying point is or how what you write demonstrates it. The whole thing is just confusing. I can only go back to what I said before, yes you can get an ought from an is fairly readily if you want to, but your 'is' already contains a moral judgement, and it has not been reasonably demonstrated to be objectively or universally true.
Regarding the bit in bold, can you give me an example of a moral assessment that logically follows from something described using only nonmoral terms?
I think I can reduce what you said to, "It is not reasonable to object...that moral assessments do not logically follow from information described using only nonmoral terms".
So an example would help. Because personally, at this point, I would say that moral assessments do not logically follow from information described using only nonmoral terms. If anyone said they did, I would object. Where is my mistake?
If possible, keep it short.
ps I believe the ball itself is not actually red.