An ought is where upon coming to a conclusion, or discovering a fact, that we ought to take some form of action.
If we believe in the Biblical God and the literal Truth of the whole bible then we ought to stone our family and neighbours for their indiscretions. If we believe in fundamental human rights then all of our laws and actions ought to guarantee those rights. Oughts then dictate how we should structure our societies, for laws are the oughts of behaviour which are agreed that the ruler or state has power to coerce. To highlight the ethical dilemmas associated with oughts please bare with me while I draw some connections between different hypothetic moral scenarios.
An example of an ought is about how ought parents act in regards to raising their children. A tribe with limited outside contact might want to retain it’s isolated status. Should the children of that tribe have the decision that they are not allowed to have access to outside health care and education made for them by their parents? One can argue that is a parent’s right to govern the lives of their children until they are capable of their own reasoning. Following the same logic Jehova’s witnesses ought to be allowed to deny life saving blood transfusions for their children. Both scenarios are forms of coercion against children, in the Jehova’s case the results are more severe. To resolve this problem we can argue a new ought - for the sanctity of human life. If there is unacceptable (emphasis added to highlight that what is deemed unacceptable would need to be decided) suffering or death involved then it is reasonable for an outside agent to intervene. This resolves the argument by stating that parents have the right to raise their children how they see fit so long as it does not cause unacceptable suffering or death. However if we assume this ought then there are implications for other situations.
How are cost-benefit decisions to be made when it comes to public policy - should no expense be spared to save one life? If a particularly dangerous stretch of road that will statistically save on average ten lives a year diverts funds from immunisation for a communicable disease that might cause ten deaths a year how are we to decide which group is to be spared? What if instead of comparing deaths for deaths we were to compare the deaths of ten people to the happiness or well being of 10 million people? If the sanctity of human life is most important ought we cancel public broadcasting, sponsorship of the arts, and non-essential defence spending and put all of that money into health care? If not, this shifts the emphasis of the ought from the sanctity of human life to measures of utility – maximising happiness (emphasis again added to highlight that what is deemed happiness would need to be decided) for as many people as possible. Maximising utility could address the earlier parent/child issues. We might conclude that in the case of the isolated tribe, happiness is maximised by them being left alone and in the case of the Jehova’s Witnesses, the parent’s happiness is sacrificed for the child’s ability to continue their life with which they experience happiness.
A way out of the moral paradoxes inherent in defining oughts is to advocate against all ought based policy making and completely liberalise all aspects of society. This allows us to absolve ourselves morally about what oughts should be; we ought to do nothing in any given situation as it is neither societies nor another individual’s moral responsibility. Instead of operating because of oughts we as individuals choose our actions and consent to others affecting us. Individuals within a society are affected through societies own natural mechanisms in the same way they are affected by the Universe’s physical laws. This would be a truly anarchist society. It is not global capitalism in its current form because states in the world have their own national interests which interfere with a truly free market and corporations are unnatural entities. It is not democracy in any form because in a democracy minorities always have their views coerced to the majority. For example anti-smoking legislation, crime prevention, affirmative action legislation, or any form of licensing regulation all enforce or control a particular view point. All of these tasks are then dealt with naturalistically by groups who have common goals within societies.
A completely deregulated society organised around small collectives has a few critical problems: