Anti-Autonomism Defended: A Reply to Hill |
| |
| Authors: | Stephen Maitzen |
| |
| Affiliation: | (1) Department of Philosophy, Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, B4P 2R6, Canada |
| |
| Abstract: | In the current issue of this journal, Scott Hill critiques some of my work on the “is”-“ought” controversy, the Hume-inspired debate over whether an ethical conclusion can be soundly, or even validly, derived from only non-ethical premises. I’ve argued that it can be; Hill is unconvinced. I reply to Hill’s critique, focusing on four key questions to which he and I give different answers. |
| |
| Keywords: | “ Is” – “ ought” problem Philosophical taxonomy Ethical nihilism Moral properties Hill, Scott Hume, David Karmo, Toomas Prior, A. N. |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
