Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/21/08 2:07 pm:
server

It would seem that the two are inseparable in any rational existence!

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/22/08 3:38 am:
Jim,

Hume's position is quite simply that "ought" can never be derived from "is". But the fact that Hume is reasoning implies that he ought to choose the correct answer. If "ought" can never be derived from "is" there is no point in reasoning!

There is an excellent discussion at

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:3Qw2PZV75yYJ:www.oxfordmedicalhumanities.co.uk/articles/craine2006.pdf+hume+is+ought&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=uk

Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/22/08 2:56 pm:
Tony,

As I read his paper, Craine is pretty close to the Wikipedia article. Both understand Hume to be pointing out a gap in (most, almost all, all?) arguments that appear to derive ought or normative declarations from is statements, statements of material fact.

If, in your reading, Hume is somehow guilty of committing the fallacy that he points out, it does nothing to make valid the sorts of explanations or deductions that he is referring to as invalid.

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/22/08 6:15 pm:
Jim

Can you detect a flaw in my argument?

Let me put it this way. To reason implies that reasoning is worthwhile. If it is not why did Hume bother to reason at all? Surely it was to arrive at the truth - which, like any rational being, he obviously regarded as valuable.

Hume used reasoning to demonstrate that a value judgment cannot be based on a fact. Yet reasoning itself is an objective fact. The gulf between facts and values is therefore bridged by reasoning and the object of reasoning - the truth.

Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/22/08 8:41 pm:
Tony,

You've clearly built your ought into your premises. Why reason, why be rational? To find truth. Why do we value truth? Because truth is something rational beings value.

Philosophers more careful than I am (able to be) have, at least in some cases, come to the conclusion that the Good is either undefinable or not in any way related to Truth. I think this was mentioned both in the Wikipedia article and in the Craine article.

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/23/08 1:25 am:
Jim,

I thought you were a pragmatist! If we don't believe in being rational there is no point in reasoning. If some philosophers come to the conclusion that the Good is in no way related to Truth they are undermining their own argument.

The best test of any philosophy is whether it is successful in practice. The achievements of science alone demonstrate the value of arriving at the truth. Philosophy has often had a poor reputation precisely because some philosophers have become too theoretical, carried away by abstractions and out of touch with the real world. It was mainly American philosophers (e.g.James and Dewey) who redressed the balance :)

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/24/08 2:39 pm:
Jim,

The starting point is not the belief that truth is considered valuable but the fact that Hume (and everyone else) reasons. We don't decide to reason after concluding that it is valuable. We do it automatically. To value something implies an element of choice but with reasoning we have no choice. Everything would grind to a halt if we ceased to reason. It would be equivalent to committing mental suicide. The value of reasoning does not depend on a human belief or decision. It stems from its utility and necessity.

Obviously there are many instances of values resulting from human beliefs and decisions. Yet Hume believed "ought" can never be derived from "is". A more appropriate description would be: Hume believed "ought" ought never be derived from "is"! On what ground? His assumption that existence is amoral, i.e. "is" and "ought" are two distinct elements of reality (similar to his atomism with regard to the mind as "a bundle of perceptions" rather than a continuous entity). If his belief were taken to its logical conclusion it would lead to nihilism - in which nothing has any objective value. Whatever happens would become a worthless product of the human imagination because existence itself is regarded as worthless. I suppose that is one way of dispensing with value judgments...