Here's a more philosophical topic for discussion

The is ought problem was formulated by David Hume, according to this problem, we cannot get what should be, what "ought" to be(in other words, morals and ethics) from what "is", factual knowledge. This possibly means any kind of moral system is completely arbitrary because there is no factual basis for the way one option "ought" to be over any other option. Hume is saying morality and ethics are not propositions, for example, say killing is consider wrong, there's no way that it could be considered true that killing is wrong.

Of course there are objections to Hume's line of reasoning but do you think about this, do you think this philosophical problem can ever be solved, is moral nihilism the answer or can other meta-ethical ideas be preserved? Note that even if you say your morals derive from God this still does not solve the problem because(according to Hume) that is just God's commands(normative statement), it is still not derived from an "is".

Hume summed up very much what I feel about morality in a way I've often struggled to put into words.

If you look through history, there are no moral absolutes: what is considered moral (even those morals supposedly handed down by an eternal God) is determined by contemporary society.  This is something you'd expect to see if Hume is right about being unable to derive morals & ethics from facts & reality, so ISTM that there is definitely something behind that premise.

I think there is a natural law that underpins the way we go about this earth. 

I think there is a natural law that underpins the way we go about this earth. 

Gravity?

Without going into a long analysis, I think there are some imperatives that we inherit, not genetically, per say, but as a result of our species nature, our evolutionary history as social animals.  The need to cooperate created and creates many imperatives, which we  codify into "moral precepts"

The is ought problem was formulated by David Hume, according to this problem, we cannot get what should be, what "ought" to be(in other words, morals and ethics) from what "is", factual knowledge.


That's not really an accurate description of the problem.  Hume's real issue was that many philosophers confuse the two. 

F'rinstance, "Some species of ducks use rape as a reproductive strategy.  Therefore humans can be expected to rape." 

I dig a lot of the things that have come out of evolutionary biology, but even if I accept the unstated assumption that humans and ducks are equally capable of acts of moral agency (I don't), I'm obliged to disagree that "is" implies "ought".

The is/ought problem is compounded when you bring politics into the mix.  Attention Creationist dingbats: Just because someone observed some ducks getting their freak on and you took that (description) of duck reproductive strategy as a (normative) sanction of rape - doesn't mean that the concept "believes in evolution" implies "endorses rape".  Observed behavior in ducks does not imply acceptable behavior for humans.

But if I take the question as you phrased it, I'm more a descriptivist than a normativist.  That is, where "is" and "ought" are not in direct conflict, I act in a manner consistent with my definition of "ought".  But because I know of no universally-valid "ought", where "ought" conflicts with observation, I conclude that my premises were wrong, and go with "is". 

Side note: If anyone were to come up with an "ought" that was derivable from first principles, everybody would ultimately end up convinced of it due to its self-evidence.  (The fact that this hasn't happened, and the fact that I acknowledge it even without the influence of beer, is something that really pisses off a couple of Randroids I know in real life.)

The "ought" distinguishes humans from the lesser beasts.

That's not really an accurate description of the problem.  Hume's real issue was that many philosophers confuse the two. 

F'rinstance, "Some species of ducks use rape as a reproductive strategy.  Therefore humans can be expected to rape." 

I dig a lot of the things that have come out of evolutionary biology, but even if I accept the unstated assumption that humans and ducks are equally capable of acts of moral agency (I don't), I'm obliged to disagree that "is" implies "ought".

I find a lot of so-called "philosophers" completely misread what evolutionary biology is, means and can imply for human behaviour.

Sigh.