I might be a bit of brainlet but is/ought makes sense in a moral ground but in pure facts it doesn't. Example

It is harmful to your teeth to not brush your teeth. Therefore you ought to brush your teeth.

Am I wrong? Or am I doing it wrong?. This is just a true statement no matter how you look at it. Am I missing something?

>>24478735 (OP)
Hmm but i want to harm my teeth though. Boom. It's over

>>24478735 (OP)
"You should avoid cavities so your teeth don't fall out so that you can eat. You see? The fallacy still works.

>>24478735 (OP)
>It is harmful to your teeth to not brush your teeth. Therefore you ought to brush your teeth.
Something being harmful isn't necessarily wrong. In most moralities, you ought to do harm, at least in certain circumstances (defending an invasion for instance).

This post is retarded. Therefore you ought to kill yourself.
Wait you're right, this is just a factual statement

>>24478735 (OP)
You are partially right but you gotta account for people that want to do harm to oneself. The fallacy it's just accounting for every possible option that's why you need a second should statement.

there's people who don't need to brush teeth anon, brushing therefore, is a prescription arrived at by inductive trial error, it's not a universal statement about rotting teeth

>>24478735 (OP)
Fact-value is more interesting

>>24478756
Skill issue. It is the is/ought fallacy

>>24478735 (OP)
Can someone explain the is/ought fallacy like I'm a kid. From what I understand it is just taking into consideration every possible option hence why a second should is needed.

>>24478783
It's not a fallacy but a problem.
Most people see science as a means of uncovering the existence of physical objects and the laws that govern them. But there's no physical basis for morality in this view. The strongest microscope won't help you better understand the universe morally. Even if you can describe the physical properties of every particle in the universe, you're no closer towards describing whether your decision to drive to work instead of walk was a moral one. Ultimately, science and morality live in different spheres.

>>24478735 (OP)
What OP describes is a rational decision, not a moral decision.

>>24478735 (OP)
Alasdair MacIntyre makes something like this point in After Virtue .If I remember correctly, he uses the example of a watch that doesn't tell the time being a bad watch because the purpose of a watch is built into its definition.
Much of his project is to return to the Aristotelian concept of everything, most importantly humans, having a final cause. The tie between morality and the final cause was largely abandoned during the enlightenment debates after Hume, where the is/ought distinction comes from.

A lot of people are arguing against your example by trying to deny or change the final cause of your teeth. But if you argue that the final cause exists as much as anything else, then the moral imperative logically follows.

>>24479162
So it stands to reasons the is/ought fallacy doesn't work with rational decisions.