www.nosetgauge.com/p/alignment-and-succession-toward-a
1 correction found
Hume’s fork: you cannot derive an ought from an is
This mixes up two different Humean ideas. 'Hume’s Fork' is Hume’s distinction between 'relations of ideas' and 'matters of fact,' while the claim that you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' is usually called Hume’s Law or the is–ought problem.
Full reasoning
The article attributes the is–ought problem to Hume’s Fork, but those are not the same concept.
- Hume’s Fork is the epistemological division between “relations of ideas” and “matters of fact.”
- The claim that one cannot derive an “ought” from an “is” is a different doctrine discussed in Hume’s moral philosophy and commonly called Hume’s Law or the is–ought problem.
So the problem is not the underlying philosophical point about is/ought; it is the specific label. Calling that point “Hume’s fork” is inaccurate.
2 sources
- David Hume (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
One of Hume's most fundamental contributions to metaphysics is what is now known as 'Hume's Fork,' which divides knowledge into 'relations of ideas' and 'matters of fact' (EHU 4.1).
- Hume's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Hume's position in ethics ... is best known for asserting four theses ... [and includes a section titled] 'Is and Ought'.