Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Staddon, John
dc.date.accessioned 2011-03-25T20:48:47Z
dc.date.available 2011-03-25T20:48:47Z
dc.date.issued 2009
dc.identifier.citation Behavior and Philosophy, 37, 181-185 (2009) en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10161/3391
dc.description.abstract Professor Hocutt and I agree that David Hume first pointed out that “ought”—what should be done—cannot be derived from “is”—what is the case. Hocutt goes on to claim that “ought,” in fact, derives from factual observation of “what we care about,” which amounts to saying “you should do what you want to do.” This seems to me unsatisfactory as moral philosophy. en_US
dc.description.sponsorship NIMH en_US
dc.publisher Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies en_US
dc.subject Hume, Moore, naturalistic fallacy, evolution, Fodor, moral en_US
dc.title FAITH AND GOODNESS: A REPLY TO HOCUTT en_US
dc.type Article en_US
duke.contributor.id jers en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record