Is and ought according to Hume (etre et devoir être chez Hume)

Abstract

Supposedly one cannot infer norms (infer ought from is or is from ought) because of the so-called law of Hume. Hume however never says normative inference be impossible. Rather he says that whoever wishes to infer norms must bear the burden of expliciting their normative steps and their proof. The article explains this misunderstanding hopefully clearing up a field of needless confusion in the law.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,317

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

In defence of Hume’s law.Gillian Russell - 2010 - In Charles Pigden (ed.), Hume on Is and Ought. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Hume and the Natural Law Tradition.Jeremy Joshua Ofseyer - 1999 - Dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Rand on Hume's Moral Skepticism.Tibor R. Machan - 2008 - Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 9 (2):245 - 251.
Sentimentalism and the Is-Ought Problem.Noriaki Iwasa - 2011 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (3):323-352.
Hume on Is and Ought.W. D. Falk - 1976 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 6 (3):359 - 378.
Barriers to implication.Greg Restall - 2010 - In Charles Pigden (ed.), Hume and ‘is’ and ‘ought’: new essays. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Ruling out solutions to Prior’s dilemma for Hume’s law.Aaron Wolf - 2020 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 9 (2):84-93.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
38 (#584,724)

6 months
5 (#1,015,253)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references