Advertisement

Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 53–69 | Cite as

Minding the Is-Ought Gap

  • Campbell Brown
Article

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

Is-ought Autonomy of ethics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Craig, W. (1957). Three uses of the Herbrand–Gentzen theorem relating model theory and proof theory. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 22(3), 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hume, D. (1978). A treatise on human nature, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jackson, F. (1974). Defining the autonomy of ethics. The Philosophical Review, 83(1), 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pigden, C. (1989). Logic and the autonomy of ethics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 67(2), 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prior, A. N. (1960). The autonomy of ethics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 38(3), 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Restall, G., & Russell, G. (2010). Barriers to implication. In C. Pigden (Ed.), Hume on is and ought: New essays. (pp 243–259). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schurz, G. (1997). The is-ought problem: An investigation in philosophical logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations