Hume and Facts, Logic and Values: A Comment on Cord's Argument

William H. Stoddard

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 1982, vol. 41, issue 2, 218-218

Abstract: Abstract. Steven B. Cord argues for a moral standard based ultimately on the obligation to treat things as what they are. However, this makes morally good behavior impossible for anyone who does not know what something is. Since ought implies can, a principle relied on by Cord in his derivation of natural rights from his ultimate premise, and since no human being is omniscient. Cord's argument is invalid. Further, it runs directly counter to intuitively based moral judgments about right action under conditions of uncertain knowledge.

Date: 1982
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1982.tb03177.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:ajecsc:v:41:y:1982:i:2:p:218-218

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0002-9246

Access Statistics for this article

American Journal of Economics and Sociology is currently edited by Laurence S. Moss

More articles in American Journal of Economics and Sociology from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().