How do you decide whether you ought to do something? Chances are you’ve employed statements about how things are or have been as the basis for making a judgment call. The 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume forcefully argued against this approach. According to ‘Hume’s law’, also known as the ‘is/ought problem’, determining what you ought to do based on what is represents a logical mistake because there’s a gap that reason cannot bridge between the facts of the world and the values you might espouse.
Ought we accept Hume’s severing of any connection between ‘is’ and ‘ought’?

videoHistory of ideas
Can the problem of induction save Anthony’s dismal dating life?
6 minutes

videoPolitical philosophy
Sartre and the existential choice: ‘In fashioning myself, I fashion humanity’
2 minutes

videoEthics
Can a lie ever be noble? Why Kant believed even a life-saving fib was immoral
2 minutes

videoPhilosophy of mind
If you knew everything, could you predict anything? A thought experiment
8 minutes

videoPhilosophy of mind
We may never settle the ‘free will’ debate, but tapping into it is still worthwhile
32 minutes

videoEthics
All’s not well that ends well – why Kant centred morality on motives, not outcomes
55 minutes

videoPleasure and pain
Great news: pleasure is the purpose of life. Bad news: moderation is key
6 minutes

videoHistory of ideas
Socrates believed self-knowledge was essential. Today, we wonder if there’s even a self to know
2 minutes

videoEthics
You messed up. You’re in trouble. But don’t worry, logical positivism can help
6 minutes