Hedonistic Utilitarianism:
Hume showed that we cannot deduce an ethical claim (which tells us how the world ought to be) from a descriptive claim about how the world is. In short we cannot derive an “is” from an “ought”.
- Cheating can ruin a relationship (Descriptive: Is claim)
- Cheating is wrong. (Ethical: Ought claim)
We cannot deduce the conclusion without adding another claim.
- Cheating can ruin a relationship (Descriptive: Is claim)
- Ruining relationships is wrong (Ethical: Ought claim)
- Cheating is wrong (Ethical: Ought claim)
Note that all that Hume claims is that we cannot deduce (validly) an Ought from an Is. But that does not mean that our description claims cannot be evidence for, or part of an non-deductive argument.
Suppose that Hume is correct. How might this be an argument for Subjectivism? The subjectivist might formulate an argument like this:
- You can’t validly deduce an ethical argument from purely descriptive premises.
- Ethical statements are neither true nor false.
But you can see that this argument itself is not valid. A further premise is needed.
- P1 You can’t validly deduce an ethical argument from purely descriptive premises.
- P2 If ethical statements are not deducible from purely descriptive premises then
- Ethical statements are neither true nor false.
- Ethical statements are neither true nor false.
But is P2 plausible? Perhaps but if you are likely to believe it, you are likely to doubt that there are ethical facts. So it is likely question begging.
Emotivism:
New formulation of Subjectivism:
Hi, my name is BMB. I'm currently a student, majoring in Computer Science and Mathematics.
BMB’s C++ BMB Edu’s Youtube BMB’s Nerd Tube