There has never been a solution to the Is-ought problem
>>18464529Why do you think so? I'm genuinely curious.
>>18464529No shit? It's only a problem for a thin subset of moral realists who believe in objective morals, but are too cowardly to commit to pure objectivism and reject the notion that subjective things exist in any capacity. Everybody else, including the based retard hardline objectivists, has no problem here.
>>18464529It was already a truism in Ancient Greece:>ζῶμεν γὰρ οὐχ ὡς θέλομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς δυνάμεθα