Sober Philosophy: The Philosophy of Should (Gabriel presents)

Can Philosophy Prescribe Anything?

There are many philosophies that aim to prescribe instead of purely describe behavior. Stoicism pursues virtue. Epicureanism seeks tranquility. Utilitarianism maximizes wellbeing. Kant says to act on principles you could will universally. Each prescribes, and each prescription rests on a claim about what matters. But do any of these philosophies have the standing to prescribe at all? As Hume noted, you can't get an "ought" from an "is" alone. Every prescriptive argument needs a normative premise, and where those premises come from is unclear. It’s also difficult for prescriptive philosophies to be fully non-contradictory. For example, some Epicureans would refuse to enter Robert Nozick's hypothetical experience machine, a device that permanently gives you any experience you want, indistinguishable from reality. But this
would seem to be contradictory with the Epicurean goal of maximizing the feeling of tranquility. Can any prescriptive philosophy be fully consistent with one’s intuition? And what gives intuition the ultimate authority? Can any prescriptive philosophy survive the is-ought problem, or are they all just confident assertions of preference? Even more broadly, when can we ever say “should”, and does any of this matter for how we actually live?

OPENING ROUNDTABLE FORMAT (ORF):

1. The topic presenter begins the discussion by explaining why they are interested in the topic and some introductory thoughts on it.
2. Each participant in turn going clockwise from the presenter describes their general thoughts on the topic.
3. If one is not ready to speak they can just say “pass” and the next person speaks.
4. After we've gone around once anyone who passed will get a second chance to comment.
5. Once everyone has given opening remarks or passed twice, Opening Roundtable is completed and the meeting shifts into its main format.

TIMED DIRECTION FORMAT (TDRF>4):
If there are more than 4 people present we will use the format below.

1. We will divide up the timed direction discussion time by the number of participants plus one (for a buffer). A timer will be set for this amount of time.
2. Each participant in turn will become a Discussion Director and lead the group discussion.
3. If one is not ready to direct they dimply say “pass” and the next person becomes the Discussion Director.
4. Anyone who arrives after step 1 (above), may participate but will not get a turn as Discussion Director.
5. The Discussion Director can make statements or ask questions, or interrupt or redirect the discussion at their discretion.
6. The discussion participants can state their own opinions only when asked by the Discussion Director, not Interrupt others and accede to the Discussion Director’s interruptions or redirections.
7. When the timer goes off the person speaking finishes their thought and then the next participant clockwise becomes the next Discussion Director.
8. After we've gone around once anyone who passed will get a second chance to direct.

At the end of the meeting, participants will have an opportunity to vote on the topic and format for the following meeting.