Open question argument
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 16:53, 14 May 2012 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | {{Template}} | + | #REDIRECT [[Open-question argument]] |
| - | In [[meta-ethics]], the '''is-ought problem''' was articulated by [[David Hume]] ([[Scotland|Scottish]] [[philosopher]] and [[historian]], 1711–1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ''ought'' to be on the basis of statements about what ''is''. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and [[Linguistic prescription|prescriptive]] or [[normative]] statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how we can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | A similar (though distinct) view is defended by [[G. E. Moore]]'s [[open question argument]], intended to refute any identification of [[moral]] properties with natural [[properties]]. This so-called [[naturalistic fallacy]] is contrasted by the views of [[ethical naturalism|ethical naturalists]]. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | == See also == | + | |
| - | *[[Fact-value distinction]] | + | |
| - | *[[Naturalistic fallacy]] | + | |
| - | *[[Best of all possible worlds]] | + | |
| - | *[[Situational ethics]] | + | |
| - | *[[Normative economics]] / [[Positive economics]] | + | |
| - | {{GFDL}} | + | |
Current revision
- REDIRECT Open-question argument
