Hume's Is-Ought Problem is a philosophical concept that arises from the observation that it is often difficult to move from statements about how the world is to statements about how the world ought to be. He states his problem as:
Hume is saying here that just because something is a certain way, it does not always follow that it is ought to be that way. We could state facts such as:
These are truthful facts, but just by collecting these it doesnt prove that murder is an evil act. On the other hand some may collect together facts and moral opinions such as:
Whether you agree with these statements or not you can see how Hume's argument proposes that fact and morality are two different ideas, that even though they can interact they are made up of different thoughts. Moving from facts to moral values requires additonal assumptions or introducing concepts such as "wellbeing", or "rights".
Facts by themselves are neutral in the moral sense, they describe what is the case in an objective view. Facts alone cannot tell us what to think in a moral perspective. In order to determine if murder is wrong based on fact we need to introduce the concept of wellbeing. Wellbeing is defined as:
Based on this definition we have to assume that decreasing wellbeing is morally bad, and increasing and preserving wellbeing is morally good. Only after we include the concept of wellbeing we can conclude from the facts about murder whether it is morally bad or not. If we take a look at concluding whether stealing is bad or not based on facts. We could state facts such as:
These facts alone do not tell us whether stealing is morally wrong or not, we need to introduce the concept of rights in order to conclude whether stealing is bad or not. We have to assume that violating someones rights is morally wrong. Only then can we come to the conclusion that based off of those facts stealing is morally wrong. In both of these cases the facts only become relevant to the question of whether its morally right or not, once we include extra concepts such as "rights" or "wellbeing". Even with these concepts we still have to make assumptions on whether breaking your rights or wellbeing is morally wrong. These concepts go beyond merely describing what is the case as the facts do. They imbue the facts with moral meaning allowing us to bridge the gap between "is" and "ought".
Moral values are not always factual in nature, they are not just descriptions of what exists but involve judgements of value about how things should exist. We can only deduce factual moral values from a single source and that is the Bible. In order to move from facts to human moral opinions it requires additonal assumptions or concepts. This suggests that most moral values are not objective facts in the same way that some scientific facts are. However this does not mean that moral values are meaningless or arbitrary. We can still use reason and debate to justify our moral opinions. The challenge is finding a way to justify moral values in a way that is not relying on emotions or preference. One way we can do this is by taking a look at God's holy word, the Bible. In this text it states his Mosaic Commandments which are listed as:
These Commandments declare whats right or wrong they tell us our base moral values, and all other values should be based off of these Commandments, and other parts of the Bible. Hume's argument raises questions about the source and justification of moral values. It does not in itself imply moral skepticism.
In conclusion Hume's essay on the Is-Ought problem highlights the distinction between factual premises and moral judgements. It shows that some morals cant be derived from facts alones. But this does not necessary mean we cannot find ways to justify moral principles and values through a combination of facts, reason, and moral concepts. The challenge is determining what these justifications might be.