David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Logic (1):1-17 (2012)
The ‘No Ought From Is’ principle (or ‘NOFI’) states that a valid argument cannot have both an ethical conclusion and non-ethical premises. Arthur Prior proposed several well-known counterexamples, including the following: Tea-drinking is common in England; therefore, either tea-drinking is common in England or all New Zealanders ought to be shot. My aim in this paper is to defend NOFI against Prior’s counterexamples. I propose two novel interpretations of NOFI and prove that both are true
|Keywords||Is-ought Autonomy of ethics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Christine Swanton (2007). Can Hume Be Read as a Virtue Ethicist? Hume Studies 33 (1):91-113.
Neil McArthur (2005). David Hume and the Common Law of England. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 3 (1):67-82.
Gerald J. Postema (1986). Bentham and the Common Law Tradition. Oxford University Press.
Peter Millican (1998). Hume on Reason and Induction: Epistemology or Cognitive Science? Hume Studies 24 (1):141-159.
Christopher MacLachlan (2000). Hume and Matthew Prior's “Alma”. Hume Studies 26 (1):159-169.
Jeffrey Ketland (2002). Hume = Small Hume. Analysis 62 (1):92–93.
Tony Pitson (2006). George Campbell's Critique of Hume on Testimony. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 4 (1):1-15.
Scott Hill (2008). 'Is'–'Ought' Derivations and Ethical Taxonomies. Philosophia 36 (4):545-566.
Added to index2009-10-22
Total downloads144 ( #4,060 of 1,004,529 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #10,359 of 1,004,529 )
How can I increase my downloads?