Review of Metaphysics 59 (1):200-202 (2005)

Abstract
Hume's law, that is, that moral claims cannot be inferred from exclusively nonmoral claims, is widely accepted by recent and contemporary philosophers, some exceptions being John Searle and A. N. Prior. Chapter 1 distinguishes three versions of the law: the formal version ), the conceptual version ), and the epistemic version ), all of which, according to Salwén, are true. When "valid inference" means "a sentence is a logical consequence of a set of sentences K iff there is no interpretation under which all the sentences of K are true and x false", then the law is, HL: "For all valid arguments, K>X, and all moral expressions Ö, if Ö occurs nonvacuously in X, then Ö appears in K". When "valid inference" means an inference "such that the truth of the premise conceptually guarantees the truth of the conclusion", and when a bridge premise is a conditional sentence whose antecedent is a nonmoral sentence and whose consequence is a categorial norm or moral sentence, then the law reads, HL: "There are no analytic bridge sentences". Thus, HL implies, as against Searle, that the bridge premise, "If Jones has promised to pay Smith five dollars, then Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars," is false. Unlike either HL or HL, HL is about nonmoral reasons for holding moral beliefs. Thus, "HL implies that, say, the acceptance of 'Jones has promised to pay Smith five dollars' is a reason to accept 'Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars' only if it is accepted that promises ought to be kept".
Keywords Catholic Tradition  Contemporary Philosophy  General Interest
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0034-6632
DOI revmetaph2005591106
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,199
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Hume = Small Hume.Jeffrey Ketland - 2002 - Analysis 62 (1):92–93.
David Hume and the Common Law of England.Neil McArthur - 2005 - Journal of Scottish Philosophy 3 (1):67-82.
Well Temper'd Eloquence.David Hume - 1996 - The David Hume Institute.
Belief in Miracles: Tillotson's Argument Against Transubstantiation as a Model for Hume. [REVIEW]Michael Levine - 1988 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 23 (3):125 - 160.
In Defence of Hume’s Law.Gillian Russell - 2010 - In Charles Pigden (ed.), Hume on Is and Ought. Palgrave MacMillan.
Barriers to Implication.Gillian Russell & Greg Restall - 2010 - In Charles Pigden (ed.), Hume on Is and Ought. Palgrave MacMillan.
Hume’s Scale.Hendrik van der Breggen - 2002 - Philosophia Christi 4 (2):443 - 453.
Hume’s Law Reconsidered.Heiner F. Klemme - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 10:237-243.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-01-09

Total views
19 ( #584,826 of 2,518,149 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #408,577 of 2,518,149 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes