The Trap of "is" and "Ought" the Criminal Actions And GBS's What Can Be

“Is” and “ought” can be a trap for us. The philosopher, David Hume, says the problem comes about when someone makes claims about what ought to be based on what is. There is a huge difference between a descriptive statement which is about what is and a prescriptive statement about what ought to be. That can get us into the weeds a bit so I’m taking a different approach. 

I’m looking at the trap in the opposite way. We see something like education, prison, or our political climate and assume that the way things currently are is the way they are supposed to be. Just because we have a political climate that is hate-based and fear-driven (the is) doesn’t mean that is the way it is supposed to be (the ought). 

We need to have George Bernard Shaw’s quote in mind. It’s been said by John F. Kennedy in a speech to the Irish Parliament and by Robert F. Kennedy (the good one, not the vaccine denier) in his campaign for the presidency. “You see things as they are and ask ‘why?’ I dream things that never were and ask ‘why not?’” This is a call for us to think differently and not be constrained by current limitations. This should inspire innovation and hope and to dream about what can be. We’re not there yet, but we are having something of a reckoning and I’m feeling optimistic…

David Hume raised the is–ought problem in his Treatise of Human Nature.