Hume's Take On Morals-The Is/Ought Gap and the Impossible Bridge

If they put in a bridge, it would save a of lot of driving miles, but they'll never put that in out here in the middle of nowhere.-Dale Jones

Given our knowledge of how the world is, how can we know how the world ought to be? Hume believed that knowledge is based on experience. The is-ought gap is completely valid and extremely difficult to bridge (although I will attempt and post any possible connection if I am able to create an argument that derives an ought from solely is claims). "Hume's is/ought gap by itself does not entail that subjectivism is true. It is just an observation about what valid arguments for ethical claims require" (wikipedia). He is suggesting that because our individual or cultural experiences, our sense of moral right and wrong are tainted. Empirically, it is therefore difficult for us to possess any idea of moral truths (if they even exist). There are definitely universally accepted moral boundaries but again, they are based on what has been and what is, according to our observations. Much like von Glasersfeld's theory of unconceptualized apples, it is virtually impossible to confidently and conceive a true and right moral act without first basing it upon another moral assumption or generally accepted pre-existing idea.