Hume’s Law Violated?

Journal of Value Inquiry 48 (3):449-455 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Introduction: Prinz’s SentimentalismMany ethicists claim that one cannot derive an ought from an is. In others words, they think that one cannot derive a statement that has prescriptive force from purely descriptive statements. This thesis plays a crucial role in many theoretical and practical ethical arguments. Since, according to many, David Hume advocated a view along these lines, this thesis has been called ‘Hume’s Law’. In this paper, I adopt this widespread terminology, whether or not Hume did indeed take this position. There are some notable exceptions among philosophers, such as John SearleSee John R. Searle, “How to Derive “Ought” from “Is”,” Philosophical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, (1964), pp. 43–58. and Arthur Prior,See Arthur N. Prior, “The Autonomy of Ethics,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 38, No. 3, (1960), pp. 199–206. but most philosophers have embraced Hume’s Law. Recently, however, Hume’s Law has come under attack. In his book The Emotional Construction of Mor

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

In defence of Hume’s law.Gillian Russell - 2010 - In Charles Pigden, Hume on Is and Ought. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
On Hume's Is-Ought Thesis.D. C. Stove - 1978 - Hume Studies 4 (2):64-72.
Gilotyna Hume'a.Piotr T. Makowski - 2011 - Przegląd Filozoficzny 4 (80):317-334.
Laying Down Hume's Law.Hsueh Qu - 2018 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 100 (1):24-46.
Moral Knowledge By Deduction.Declan Smithies - 2021 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 104 (3):537-563.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-06-03

Downloads
924 (#25,267)

6 months
82 (#78,207)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Rik Peels
VU University Amsterdam

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references