Competitory ethics: Circumventing the "Is ought problem"

Highly Highly Speculative, probably also wrong but still very very interesting

A famous problem of Philosophy is the “is-ought problem.” It is Hume’s famous statement that you cannot derive moral value from facts alone. If we in the strict form, assume that we cannot derive moral statements from factual statements alone in any form then morality needs to be a seperate magisterium from factual statements like religion.

Let’s assume that this is true, that still leaves other questions that can be answered based on facts, and that is goal-directed behavior. I give an example to illustrate what I mean with this: Let’s assume you play chess; then there are moves that are better than other moves. Sure you could make a dumb move, and an opponent could make an even dumber move, but that is unlikely. If you want to win in chess, then there are moves that are clearly better then others. Good moves and bad moves, and that depends on facts. It is possible to rephrase the problem of chess to goal-directed behavior: “In order for agent A to achieve goal B, A reasonably ought to do C” exhibits no category error and may be factually verified.

This shifts the problem of morality to choosing a goal; it shifts the is-ought problem away to optimizing for a specific goal this time winning. Chess makes this an easy example because chess does not only give you the rules but also the winning condition to optimize for. What I posit is that it is possible to do the same for the is-ought problem. To derive ethics by deriving the winning move. There are ethical systems that have been abandoned, e.g. human sacrifice was once prescribed by some religions as part of their “moral good”. These ethical systems did not survive and are seen as abhorrent today, while other ethical systems still exist. If some ethical systems survive and other ethical systems die and are replaced, there is a competition between ethical systems. This leads to an evolution of ethical systems. The best ethical system is the ethical system that is the most fit, that wins the competition of ethical systems and I posit that the is-ought problem can be reformulated into an “is-will be”: The best ethical system is the ethical system that will be the most fit, so an ethical system needs to be optimized to be the most fit ethical system. Ensuring its own survival, outcompeting other ethical systems.

Is this the morally right system?
That cannot be answered because as stated above morality is a separate magisterium from factual statements.

Is it the system that will be adopted?
That is the goal. The goal for the system is to be the system that will be most widely used, that outcompetes all other systems.

This goal-directed behavior can be answered using facts: For ethical system E to achieve the goal G of being widely adopted, E reasonably needs to prescribe C.

Does this have any moral value?
Not really. It is not a question about morality; it is a question of being a popular/widely adopted ethical system.

In short: The is-ought problem can be circumvented because even if there were a moral right system, it either is identical with the winning system or unimportant because it gets replaced with the winning system even if that is wrong. How the winning ethical system wins is also unimportant, but what the best strategical move to win is can be answered based on facts.

So an ethical system shall not answer “What ought to be done?” but what ought the system itself prescribe that will be continously done and strengthens the system and makes it more fit.

An additional point is that systems can change over time so instead of being the winning system evolving into the winning system might be another goal for an ethical system if being the winning system is not an option.