David Hume: Ought vs. Is

Paper Summary:

An analysis of the arguments either agreeing or disagreeing with Hume's stance on the question of 'ought' or 'is'. It shows how Hume's thoughts and writings have been interpreted by philosophers in several ways and discusses some of these interpretations.

From the Paper:

"Beginning with David Hume and ever since, much discussion in Ethics has centered around whether we can derive an "ought" from an "is." According to R. M. Hare, we cannot logically derive from indicative premises imperative conclusions; that is, we cannot derive a prescriptive statement from only descriptive premises. Such a move would be a variation of G. E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy which, in one of its forms, suggests that evaluative statements cannot be drawn from factual statements alone."

More papers on David Hume: Ought vs. Is:

• Term Paper # 122543 : "David Hume and Evil"
• Essay # 71713 : "David Hume's "Inquiry IV"
• Analytical Essay # 139600 : "David Hume and Modern Atheism"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: