On the (in)significance of Hume’s Law
Hume’s Law that one cannot derive an “ought” from an “is” has often been deemed to bear a significance that extends far beyond logic. Repeatedly, it has been invoked as posing a serious threat to views about normativity: naturalism in metaethics and positivism in jurisprudence. Yet in recent years,...
| Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Status: | Versión aceptada para publicación |
| Publication Date: | 2022 |
| Country: | España |
| Institution: | Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| Repository: | DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dnet:digitalcsic_::6cf29b48b19f2e72bc094eaafb8b3855 |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/426803 https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85109173380 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Keyword: | Hume's Law Metaphysical grounding Legal positivism Metaethical naturalism Metaphysics |
| Summary: | Hume’s Law that one cannot derive an “ought” from an “is” has often been deemed to bear a significance that extends far beyond logic. Repeatedly, it has been invoked as posing a serious threat to views about normativity: naturalism in metaethics and positivism in jurisprudence. Yet in recent years, a puzzling asymmetry has emerged: while the view that Hume’s Law threatens naturalism has largely been abandoned (due mostly to Pigden’s work, see e.g. Pigden in Aust J Philos 67(2):127–151, 1989), the thought that Hume’s Law is a serious challenge to positivism has only grown in prominence. Our main aim is to establish that Hume’s Law is not a threat to positivism or naturalism. First, we connect extensive, but unfortunately siloed, discussions of this issue. Second, we show that Hume’s Law is not a serious threat to naturalism or positivism, for the gap between logic and such theses is very hard to bridge in a way that would make Hume’s Law able to bear this significance. Finally, we emphasize an implication of our discussion: it undermines one of the main “dialectical tributaries” in jurisprudence (Toh in Law Philos 27(5):445–504, 2008). |
|---|