Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hume’s Law Violated?

  • Published:
The Journal of Value Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. See John R. Searle, “How to Derive “Ought” from “Is”,” Philosophical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, (1964), pp. 43–58.

  2. See Arthur N. Prior, “The Autonomy of Ethics,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 38, No. 3, (1960), pp. 199–206.

  3. See Jesse J. Prinz, The Emotional Construction of Morals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 1–10, 174–183, 199–205. All page references will be to this book.

  4. For their penetrating criticisms of earlier versions of this paper, I would like to thank Daan Evers, Herman Philipse, and Jesse Prinz. This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from Templeton World Charity Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton World Charity Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy Department, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Rik Peels

Authors
  1. Rik Peels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rik Peels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peels, R. Hume’s Law Violated?. J Value Inquiry 48, 449–455 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-014-9439-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-014-9439-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation