How to Prove Hume’s Law

Journal of Philosophical Logic 51 (3):603-632 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper proves a precisification of Hume’s Law—the thesis that one cannot get an ought from an is—as an instance of a more general theorem which establishes several other philosophically interesting, though less controversial, barriers to logical consequence.

Similar books and articles

Barriers to Implication.Gillian Russell & Greg Restall - 2010 - In Charles Pigden (ed.), Hume on Is and Ought. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
In defence of Hume’s law.Gillian Russell - 2010 - In Charles Pigden (ed.), Hume on Is and Ought. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Moral Knowledge By Deduction.Declan Smithies - 2022 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 104 (3):537-563.
Laying Down Hume's Law.Hsueh Qu - 2018 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 100 (1):24-46.
Beall-ing O.Jeremiah Joven Joaquin - forthcoming - Logic and Logical Philosophy:1.
Hume’s Law Violated?Rik Peels - 2014 - Journal of Value Inquiry 48 (3):449-455.
On the (in)significance of Hume’s Law.Samuele Chilovi & Daniel Wodak - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 179 (2):633-653.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-10-25

Downloads
985 (#14,947)

6 months
341 (#7,031)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Gillian Russell
University of St. Andrews

References found in this work

After virtue: a study in moral theory.Alasdair C. MacIntyre - 1981 - Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.
Naming and Necessity.Saul Kripke - 1980 - Critica 17 (49):69-71.
The Language of Morals.Richard Mervyn Hare - 1952 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Naming and Necessity.S. Kripke - 1972 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 45 (4):665-666.
Modern Moral Philosophy.G. E. M. Anscombe - 1958 - Philosophy 33 (124):1 - 19.

View all 67 references / Add more references