(11-03-2018, 10:31 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote: Perhaps that's just the wrong is to get the ought from? After all, that is the naturalistic fallacy. But the question is, is it really always a fallacy to get an ought from an is if all oughts are ultimately ises and it's not a fallacy to get an is from an is?
The fact that one is establishing a premise without examining it is problematic. I prefer to examine my premises for veracity no matter who it is that taught me. Accepting matters simply because they always have been is fallacious thinking precisely for that reason: it allows errors in thinking to propogate.
Also, the emboldened passage should probably be demonstrated before I think about getting sucked into a philosophical vortex of verbiage and whatnot. History shows morality evolving on a consistent basis, so I find this hypothetical doubtful, to say the least.
On hiatus.