How do you get an Ought from an Is?

This question relates to the assignment of normative value in the world. How does such value get attributed in light of only brute facts which are presented to us? That is, how can we derive purpose from a world which exists purely as atomic matter in fields of force? This philosophical dilemma arises between the juxtaposition between the world of science and the human world of meaning, purpose, and morality. Put more succinctly, this conflict creates the problem of deriving an “ought” from a world that “is” (Proposed by Hume). When I view a certain object such as a painting and assign it aesthetic characteristics such as beauty, I have created value it does not possess in virtue of its physicality alone. Such assignment of value is often referred to as observer relative. To illustrate this point, the world of physical matter contains electrons and quarks, gravity and electromagnetism, but nowhere within the realm of existing particles can I find meaning. Within the third person ontology of empirically determined objective reality, there is no room for first person subjectivity which creates such notions as beauty. There is nothing over and above the way in which physical particles interact within what we call a painting which could constitute this phenomenon. There are brute facts of the existence of atoms in a particular arrangement but there is not additionally a scientific fact of aesthetic appeal. Or once again, consider music. How can it be that particular brute sound waves are regarded as pleasing or beautiful to the hearer? This can be illustrated in the same format in which Searle seeks to explain the creation of social reality whereby X counts as Y in particular C. In this case, the brute fact of sound waves counts as the aesthetic fact of music only in light of a human observer.

Is the content of such assignment my free choice, a cultural phenomenon, or universal and innate? As when I might say, “This picture is lovely”, what is it that makes me believe that it is lovely? Once again we are left with a debate as to the nature of man of whether such conveyance of value is truly subjective in the sense that it occurs as a matter of preference to a human observer. This position would hold that mankind develops ideas of meaning freely as they choose; things have value because you value them. We confer meaning on a world which exists purely as brute matter, as an “is”. Alternatively, proponents who argue that there is an inherent meaning or purpose within the universe would posit that normativity is not derived but is given. Is the idea of a “beautiful sunset” already in my mind prior to my birth? This is the position of Plato as man has thoughts which precede his very existence (essence precedes existence) of the “perfect” sense of justice, perfect good, etc. (Theory of Recollection) In this way, the idea of beauty was programmed into my mind and genetic code and when I view a beautiful picture or draw back in horror at the sight of something ghastly I am doing so not because I have assigned by own, subjective sense of what is beautiful or ugly but rather I have an innate, universal sense of beauty and the good. This is not to say the assignment does not require humans, it of course is still observer relative. But rather the value itself is something universal and not a matter of opinion, something ingrained in human nature. This agrees with evolutionary evidence regarding the nature of genetic wiring. Or as Kant argued, we can never be a blank slate because we see the world with the underlying forms of sensibility and understanding which shape our perception. This also seems to accord with experience as although there are differences between personal taste, much of mankind accords to the same ideas of justice, the good, and perhaps even beauty. This affirms a sort of universality and natural law of the ancients over the provincialism and cultural relativism of post-modernism which denies absolute truth.