So, I agree that at some level of abstraction any ought can be rationalized with an is.
This is exactly the problem with is-ought. (almost) any ought can be backward-reasoned to an is, but it’s very hard to determine the causality and necessity of the relationships. The current ises lead to a large set of contradictory and incomplete oughts.
This is exactly the problem with is-ought. (almost) any ought can be backward-reasoned to an is, but it’s very hard to determine the causality and necessity of the relationships. The current ises lead to a large set of contradictory and incomplete oughts.