✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

Is–ought problem

en.wikipedia.org · 5,151 words · saved by 2 readers

The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements.A similar view is defended by G. E. Moore's open-question argument, intended to refute any identification of moral properties with natural properties. This so-called naturalistic fallacy stands in contrast to the views of ethical naturalists.

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia Jump to content From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Philosophical problem articulated by David Hume The philosopher David Hume raised the is–ought problem in his book A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40). The is–ought problem is the question of whether moral statements about what ought to be can be inferred from objective statements about what is. It was first articulated by the 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume , who saw a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive statements (about what ought to be). He arg

Explore this link on the map →

saved by

related reading