Difference between revisions
is-ought
Status and infobox
- status:
—→ open - kind:
—→ problem - year:
—→ 1739 - statement:
—→ Can conclusions about what ought to be done be derived from facts about what is?
Relations
- + related to ai-alignment: The original curation links this problem to AI alignment; the argument for the link has not been written yet.
Source +22 −0
+---
+title: The is–ought problem
+kind: problem
+status: open
+year: 1739
+authors: David Hume
+statement: Can conclusions about what ought to be done be derived from facts about what is?
+space: value
+---
+Hume observed that arguments slide from 'is' to 'ought' without justifying the step. Naturalists try to ground ethics in facts about well-being; others hold that values are a separate category. Aligning AI systems has made the question practical, because it requires writing down what systems ought to do.
+
+Posed 1739, David Hume.
+
+## Related problems
+
+- The original curation links this problem to [[related::Problem:ai-alignment|AI alignment]]; the argument for the link has not been written yet.
+
+## Sources
+
+- [Wikipedia: Is–ought problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem)
+
+[[Space:value|Value and reason]] · [[Continent:philosophy|Philosophy]]
Revision 231 as rendered
Hume observed that arguments slide from 'is' to 'ought' without justifying the step. Naturalists try to ground ethics in facts about well-being; others hold that values are a separate category. Aligning AI systems has made the question practical, because it requires writing down what systems ought to do.
Posed 1739, David Hume.
Related problems
- The original curation links this problem to AI alignment; the argument for the link has not been written yet.