‘Is and Ought’: Yet Again

In Peter Wong, Sherah Bloor, Patrick Hutchings & Purushottama Bilimoria (eds.), Considering Religions, Rights and Bioethics: For Max Charlesworth. Springer Verlag. pp. 155-173 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Hume was wrong about getting an ‘ought’ out of an ‘is’: We do it all the time. The precaution which ‘authors do not commonly use’ is a relevant principle which we insert between mere is and axiological ought. Pamela in Richardson’s Pamela had one notable principle: qv. Kant’s later insistence that we ‘Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time will be an universal law’ sinks Hume.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,518

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Kant's Ethical Formalism.O. C. Jensen - 1934 - Philosophy 9 (34):195 - 208.
Humean Contiguity.Lorne Falkenstein & David Welton - 2001 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 18 (3):279 - 296.
Actions That We Ought, But Can't.Alex King - 2013 - Ratio 27 (3):316-327.
'Is', 'Ought' and the Voluntaristic Fallacy.Oswald Hanfling - 1997 - Philosophy 72 (282):537 - 548.
What We Ought and What We Can.Alex King - 2019 - New York, NY, USA: Routledge.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-06-17

Downloads
8 (#1,589,825)

6 months
5 (#1,080,408)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references