The famous philosopher David Hume attacked what is known as the naturalistic fallacy. The fallacy is anything that forgets that we cannot get a moral ought from an is. The fact that everybody cheats in exams does not logically lead to the suggestion that it is morally right for everybody does it. The fact that nobody cheats in exams and thinks cheating is immoral or evil does not lead to the suggestion that honesty is morally right either.
His enemies in the pulpit seem to agree with him. They usually argue that even if nature has wired many to commit adultery and cheat on their partners and sow their wild oats it is stupid to argue that is enough to make it all right morally. In other words if nature equips males to father child after child with partner after partner that does not mean it is moral to do so. You must not lie on your tax returns even if everybody else does it. What they do has nothing to do with what you should do or what anybody should do.
You may jump in here with, "Or immoral either".
What if it is not about morality? What if it is neutral? What if it is as immoral as it is moral? What if it is ethically complicated?
Hume says it is none of these for these all assume that you can get an ought and an ought-not and his point is that an is has not the slightest thing to do with morals AT ALL. You get no moral, no immoral and no mixture at all for the is, is about itself and not these things.
You cannot connect facts and values logically. Many would add, or otherwise.
OBJECTION
Hume is right within formal logic, he’s wrong about how people morally think and perceive the world.
Some factual judgments are inherently moral — they carry normative weight.
Moral “oughts” are often seen, not deduced, from real-life situations.
In real life, we don’t operate as if there’s a strict line between fact and value. Consider:
The dog is starving. You won't respond, "Isn't that a fact?" No it will be, "I ought to give the dog some food." Both are judgements. So the important question is, the question that arises is not, "Is it true or false that he is starving?" but, "How justified is my judgemetn that he must be fed?"
These are not two separate moves. The first observation is already morally loaded.
The fact-value divide oversimplifies how we experience and respond to the world ethically.
If we demand that only logically deducible claims are objective, we risk throwing out all moral reasoning — and even some parts of math, logic, and science.
Hume was right about the is–ought gap — but that doesn’t mean moral truths are subjective. It just means they aren’t deduced the way some other truths are.
Moral understanding might be less about deduction, and more about perception, experience, and recognition of value.
Still rational. Still objective. Just not reducible to pure logic.
Therefore, facts can and do give rise to moral oughts — not through logical deduction, but through moral perception, context, and evaluative language that interlocks “is” with “ought.”
REPLY: Morality then does not enjoy clear logical support. So is it subjective? Or objective?
If we demand that logically deducible claims are objective then it is true that we throw out a lot of math, logic, and science. But that does not mean get get a license for endorsing moral reasoning.
Math, logic, and science are tools. They are connected together. Morality is not like them and they can function without it.
Also, if you could argue that moral reasoning should be regarded as important as they are or even more, just because you don't like it to be thrown out, that is irrational and is moral subjectivism. Not liking something does not make it true or false or logical or illogical.
If moral reasonings or truths are objective and true though they aren’t deduced the way some other truths are - why do people differ so much over them? For some only a small number of moral truths are valid - they end up with what would be classed by many as a loose morality. For others, the number is huge.
Psychologically you can "know" something that is not true. Certainty and knowledge are not the same thing. So to have a "certain" morality is succumbing to what is at best a necessary evil. An unavoidable evil is still an evil so how could any joy in being moral be justified? A necessary evil is always regrettable. Celebrating it in any way corrupts.
We read,
The dog is starving. You won't respond, "Isn't that a fact?" No it will be, "I ought to give the dog some food." We read how moral assessment was built into the observation that the dog was hungry.
The fact is that some people at least - we will never know how many for people hide how they objectify creatures - will separate the two.
Also, do the hypothetical test. It shows what is really valued. Which one would you decide to literally forget?
1 FACT - "The dog is starving - that is a fact."
2 OUGHT - "The dog is starving - I ought to feed him".
1 sees the starving only so if you feed him it is not for moral reasons. You just do it.
2 focuses on the ought not on the dog starving. This ought makes no sense without the starving. 1 is the best choice for it it does not discourage helping.
Moreover, the two are not two sides of the coin. Our psychology has made them into that. That does not mean it is right to. Or that a God is right to join them together.
The idea of a moral 'ought' is deeply problematic — it seems to require some authority or objective foundation that isn't there, and yet people assert moral claims as if they were unquestionably right or wrong. That tension reveals a deep inconsistency at the heart of moral thinking.
APPENDIX: WHAT IF GOD LOGICALLY INFERRED "CAN I GET AN OUGHT FROM AN IS?"
While it is claimed that God is morality and does not need to reason that way, he clearly can if he wants.
So what if he did?
He would find he logically cannot.
They say he is simply good by nature - not by obligation. They say he does not self-legislate. If goodness then is that spontaneous and natural - he surely could have made us like that too? Authentic human goodness would arise naturally - it would not need faith, laws or religion.
These questions show a hidden hostility in attempts to argue that you need divine law to be moral or to help you.
Certainty and knowledge are not the same thing. God would be defective if he can reason that an apple is not a car but cannot logically prove that person a should help person b.
APPENDIX:
There are different kinds of ought or should.
-Prudential for example you must give your job application to Anne to have the best chance of getting the job
-Probabilistic for example it will rain somewhere in the world tomorrow
-Moral for example you must not walk on by and leave your neighbour to die if she has a terrible accident.
If you want a moral ought and cannot get one - you paradoxically do get one. You have to choose the other two. You have to make do. Morality is based on not asking the impossible.
Thus we have absolute proof that thinking leads to proof that moral principles are irrevocable and real and true. It is not God that validates morality it is truth and even a God cannot turn the truth into non-truth.
Ought implies, "You must do this" and "You must suffer if you do not." It shows a desire to force.
All the oughts we have seen tell us what we ought to think.
It is safe to assume that moralising backfires - it leads to people rebelling behind the moraliser's back.
APPENDIX: UTILITARIANISM
The Utilitarian view is that all that matters is the greatest wellbeing of the greatest number. We will leave aside the fact that this is not really an ethic for it permits, if possible, the murder of an innocent person if it makes everybody else better off.
It turns an ought to help into a guess for you never know if feeding starving Tim is going to help him or make him or anybody happy. And what if you are happier, not helping him?
It in its way, says you can get ought from an is but in practice, where it counts, that means little or nothing.
What if we had a form of religious Utilitarianism that said that all that mattered was the greatest happiness of God? In that view, if we feed him, it is not about him or you but making God happy. This would lead to chaos for how can we know what God wants? We will feel he is inspiring us - to tell us. That would be a very irresponsible notion.