From Is To Ought

Written by Studio AM.

In A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume noticed a shift in moral arguments. Writers would describe how things are, then suddenly state what people ought to do. They did not explain how the obligation followed from the description. Hume's objection concerned that missing reasoning, not simply the presence of an unfamiliar word.

The distinction is between a description and a prescription. A description reports how things stand; a prescription says what should be done. Consider the claim: a food is natural, therefore you ought to eat it. The conclusion needs an additional premise, such as the rule that you ought to eat whatever is natural. Once stated, that rule can be examined and challenged. The fact about the food alone does not supply it.

Asking for the missing premise makes a dispute clearer. People might agree about a situation yet disagree about which principle should guide their response. Naming that principle does not settle whether it is sound, but it gives them a claim they can discuss directly.

Questions

Choose an answer. The explanation appears after you answer.

  1. Question 1 of 4

    What is the passage mainly arguing?

  2. Question 2 of 4

    What was Hume's complaint?

  3. Question 3 of 4

    Why does stating the added rule help in the food example?

  4. Question 4 of 4

    What does “prescription” mean in this passage?

Score: none answered yet.

More passages

Practise reading