Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-17 (forthcoming)
|Abstract||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||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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.
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 downloads138 ( #4,042 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #10,195 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?