The is-ought problem, for those who believe it is an actual problem, is the problem that you can not deduce an ought statement from any number of is statements.
It seems natural for this to lead to a more extreme view.
- Due to Occam's razor, "ought"s simply do not exist.
- The is-ought problem does not only apply to morality, but also to all rational decision making (i.e. you can not get to the sentence "I ought to survive." or "I ought to be prosperous." or "I ought to pursue pleasure and avoid pain." from is statements), implying by Occam's razor that rational choices do not exist either.
- That, therefore, any decision is not inherently better or more rational than any other decision. More precisely, the claim that a decision is better or more rational than another decision has no real world meaning, since the terms "rational" as applied to decisions, or "better", have no real world meaning.
- Even if were to define rational decision in such a way as to avoid this problem (for example, in terms of material facts), rational decision making would still have no binding force.
This would imply that although given beliefs can be rational or irrational, the idea that decisions can be rational or irrational is false.
Has any philosopher taken the is-ought problem this far? If so, I imagine that we would be both a moral and existential nihilist.