Social Sciences in China, 2025

Vol. 46, No. 2, 2025

Why Do We “Must” and “Should”?—Bridging the Gap from “Is” to“Ought”

(Abstract)

Chen Bo

The split and gap between “is” and “ought,” or between “facts” and “values” or “norms,” as proposed by Hume, Moore and others, are fictitious for two reasons. First, there are no purely objective “facts,” because facts always involve subjective intervention by cognitive agents. Second, there are no purely subjective “norms,” because norms must have objective foundations and theoretical bases. Why do we “must” and “should”? This is determined by a combination of the following factors: first, our needs, intentions, and goals—where intentions and goals originate from needs, and the strength of our intentions often depends on the strength of needs. However, needs themselves have objective grounds. Second, the current state of affairs often deviates significantly from our needs and intentions. We therefore strive to change the status quo and create a vision that aligns with our needs and intentions. Third, we rely on the relevant broad scientific principles—including those of the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities—as well as on social consensus, such as cultural traditions and conventions. Fourth, we depend on our rational thinking ability: faced with the current situation, and drawing upon relevant theories and social consensus, we rationally deliberate on what we must or should do—how we can satisfy our needs, achieve our goals, and turn our visions into reality. Thus, there exists a common thread linking our needs, interests, intentions, goals, the distant reality, and our rational capacity. This commonality bridges the gap between “facts” on the one side and “values” and “norms” on the other.

Keywords: the “is-ought” problem, passive spectator, active participant, cognitivism, hypothetical imperative