Greetings! I held off announcing the new topic for a day because I only received one vote, but I've decided to go anyway. The new topic is: (4) Ought vs. Is The Fact/Value Dichotomy comes up occasionally as a bone of contention that the MoQ should be able to either solve or dissolve. This seems to have started with Hume and, I think, "A Treatise on Human Nature". Referring to proofs of the being of God: "... when of a sudden I am surprised to find that instead of the usual copulations of propositions "is" and "is not", I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an "ought" or "ought not" ... as this "ought" or "ought not" expresses some new relation or affirmation it is necessary that it be observed and explained; and at the same time a reason should be given for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others which are entirely different from it." In other words, is it reasonable to derive OUGHT from IS and does the MoQ allow, or preferably insist, that this is acceptable. Have at! Just a few reminders (from the MOQ_Focus rules): Members may post only one message every 24 hours (except for PROGRAM topic suggestions and voting in last week of month). Members must answer the program question in every post and must not pursue topics that may distract from the program. Members must express themselves clearly, concisely and courteously. They should not use HTML email nor send attachments. VOTING SUMMARY #1 #2 #3 #4 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] #5 MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
