No-Ought-From-Is By David Hume Analysis

The problem during the mid-1900’s is the “No-Ought-From-Is” was the debated between the philosophers and thinkers of that time. Even today philosophers still debated this problem. David Hume a Scottish philosopher, who is known for “No-Ought-From-is” problem. The NOFI is important to subject such as logic, ethics, and moral philosophy. In “Hume on is and Ought”, Pigden recognizes some errors and questions the NOFI. The first error is the reasoning and meaning behind the argument itself. The second error is whether NOFI supports non-cognitivism. Finally, the third error is what he means when “it seems inconceivable that a moral conclusion can be a deduction from premises that are entirely different from it” . Then, Pigden points out that philosophers

Instead of the usual copulations of proposition, is and is not. There are no proposition that is not connect with an ought or an ought not. This is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. The terms ought and ought not, it expresses some affirmation. Hume’s idea seems to be that one cannot assume moral conclusion with the term “ought” from non-moral premises. NOFI is used in Hume’s moral philosophy. Pigden questions what the true meaning of NOFI is. He claims that Hume’s idea seems to be that one cannot comprehend the context of “ought” or “is” from

Pigden gave some examples of premises that…. Fritz is a bachelor therefore Fritz has no wife. This not exactly a valid argument because the premises cannot be true and the conclusion false at the same time. Then Pigden gives us another example, Fritz is a bachelor then given a definition of a “bachelor”. The definition states that, a bachelor is a man who has no wife or has never had a wife. Therefore Fritz has no wife. Based on the statement above, the premises can be true…. One cannot derive ought from is, moral conclusion from non-ethical premises. “Is” that in a logically valid argument one cannot get anything out that you have not put in; and that since moral judgments are commands moral words are fundamentally different from non-moral words (they are not ‘descriptive’ or fact-stating). Therefore, probably moral judgments are commands. This is an inference to the best explanation which relies on the principle that the best explanation for a well-established fact is probably true. Hence if NOFl (Not-ought-from-is) is a well-established fact and non-cognitivism is part of the best explanation. Non-cognitivism is probably true. But this argument fails. For there is a better (because simpler) explanation of NOFI, namely that in a valid inference you cannot get anything (non-vacuous) out that you have not put in. This logical point explains NOFI