Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>Sure, but no matter what, you can't derive an "ought" from an "is".

The same applies to humans, no?




No it doesn't. When a humam gets wronged by what "is" they can likely feel or imagine a better "ought".


They can feel or imagine an "ought", but the point of Hume is that they can't argue for it.


And yet humans do, all the time. It's similar to Hume's attack on causality. You can't show that A caused B, but yet we all act like it's the case, when B always follows A. Kant's critique comes next.


You don’t think an machines can learn to classify situations as good or bad for them ?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: