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’?
12 August 2016
videoHistory of ideas
Can the problem of induction save Anthony’s dismal dating life?
6 minutes
videoPhilosophy of mind
If you knew everything, could you predict anything? A thought experiment
8 minutes
videoMetaphysics
Is the question ‘Why is there something instead of nothing?’ even worth asking?
9 minutes
videoHistory of ideas
Socrates believed self-knowledge was essential. Today, we wonder if there’s even a self to know
2 minutes
videoPhilosophy of mind
We may never settle the ‘free will’ debate, but tapping into it is still worthwhile
32 minutes
videoPolitical philosophy
Sartre and the existential choice: ‘In fashioning myself, I fashion humanity’
2 minutes
videoVirtues and vices
Why Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith were divided on the virtues of vanity
5 minutes
videoEthics
A deathbed scenario raises the question: how much power should a promise hold?
5 minutes
videoEthics
All’s not well that ends well – why Kant centred morality on motives, not outcomes
55 minutes