Controversies in Philosophy contributions as they appear in these General Editor A G N Flew volumes, are arranged neither in the chronological order of their first Each volume in this series deals with a publication nor in any other possibly topic that has been,and still is, the arbitrary sequence, but in such a way subject of lively debate among as to provide and to reveal some philosophers. The sort of issues that it structure and development in the embraces are only partially covered, if whole argument. Again, and for similar covered at all, by the usual collections reasons, the editorial introductions of reprinted work. are both substantial and forthcoming. The series consists largely but not Although most of the contributions in entirely of material already published each volume have been published elsewhere in scattered sources. It is as before as articles in journals, the a series distinguished by two guiding editors are asked not to confine ideas. First, the individual editors of the themselves to this source. There will various constituent volumes select and be a fair element of original material collect contributions to some and, even more frequently, extracts important controversy which in recent will be taken from books. years has been, and which still remains, alive. The emphasis is thus upon controversy, and upon the presentation of philosophers in Titles to appear in the series: controversial action. Second, the individual editors are encouraged to The Mind-Brain Identity Theory edit extensively and strongly. The idea edited by CV Borst is that they should act as firm, fair and constructive chairmen. Such a Philosophy and Linguistics chairman gives shape to a discussion edited by Colin Lyas and ensures that the several The Private Language Argument contributors are not merely heard, but edited by 0 R Jones heard at the moment when their contributions can be most relevant and Weakne&s of Will most effective. With this in mind, the edited by Geoffrey Mortimore CONTROVERSIES IN PHILOSOPHY The Is-Ought Question CONTROVERSffiS IN PHILOSOPHY General Editor A. G. N. Flew Forthcoming titles in the series Published THE IS-OUGHT QUESTION Edited by W. D. Hudson In preparation THE MIND-BRAIN IDENTITY THEORY Edited by C. V. Borst PHILOSOPHY AND LINGUISTICS Edited by Colin Lyas WEAKNESS OF WILL Edited by Geoffrey Mortimer THE PRIVATE LANGUAGE ARGUMENT Edited by 0. R. Jones The Is-Ought Question A COLLECTION OF PAPERS ON THE CENTRAL PROBLEM IN MORAL PHILOSOPHY EDITED BY W. D. Hudson CONTRIBUTORS G. E. M. Anscombe, R. F. Atkinson, Max Black, Antony Flew Philippa Foot, Kenneth Hanly, R. M. Hare, W. D. Hudson Geoffrey Hunter, B. P. Komisar,]. E. McClellan z. A. C. Macintyre, H. 0. Mounce, D. Phillips,]. R. Searle ]ames Thomson, ]udith Thomson, M. Zimmerman MACMILLAN EDUCATION © Selection and Editorial Matter W. D. Hudson 1969 First published 1969 by MACMILLAN AND CO LTD Little Essex Street London wc2 and also at Bombay Calcutta and Madras Macmillan South Africa (Publishers) Pty Ltd Johannesburg The Macmillan Company of Australia Pty Ltd Melbourne The Macmillan Company of Canada Ltd Toronto Gill and Macmillan Ltd Dublin ISBN 978-0-333-10597-9 ISBN 978-1-349-15336-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-15336-7 Foreword by the General Editor The series of which the present volume is the first member consists largely but not entirely of material already published elsewhere in scattered sources. It is as a series distinguished by two guiding ideas. First, the individual editors of the various constituent volumes select and collect contributions to some important controversy which in recent years has been, and which still remains, alive. The emphasis is thus upon controversy, and upon the presentation of philosophers in controversial action. Second, the individual editors are encouraged to edit extensively and strongly. The idea is that they should act as firm, fair, and constructive chairmen. Such a chairman gives shape to a discussion and ensures that the several contributors are not merely heard, but heard at the moment when their contributions can be most relevant and most effective. With this in mind the contribu tions as they appear in these volumes are arranged neither in the chronological order of their first publication nor in any other and arbitrary sequence, but in such a way as to provide and to reveal some structure and development in the whole argument. Again, and for similar reasons, the editorial introductions are both substantial and forthcoming. They can be seen as representing a deliberate rejection, at least within this special limited context, of the 'throw-a-reading-list at-them, send-them-away, and-see-next-week-whatever-they-have made-of-it' tutorial traditions of some ancient British universities. The present first volume, organised and orchestrated by Dr W. D. Hudson, constitutes an excellent paradigm. For the controversy which he presents deals with what can very reasonably be regarded as the central problem in moral philosophy. Dr Hudson himself claims that it is just that. Again, he presents the contributions in a coherent development; and he is not ashamed in his 'Editor's Intro duction' to undertake the pedagogic spadework of explaining pains takingly both what this movement is and how each chosen contribu tion fits into it. 6 Foreword by the General Editor Four other volumes in the present series will be published simul taneously or not long after, and some others are less definitively on the way. As General Editor I shall be glad to consider other possi bilities, whether the suggestions come from colleagues who would like to do the editorial work themselves or whether they are made by others who as teachers feel a need which they would like someone else to fill. ANTONY FLEW University of Keele, Staffordshire, England Contents Foreword by the General Editor 5 Acknowledgements 10 Editor's Introduction: The is-ought problem II PART ONE: THE INTERPRETATION OF HUME ON IS-OUGHT I Hume on 'is' and 'ought' 35 By A. C. Macintyre, Professor of Sociology, University of Essex II Hume on 'is' and 'ought: A reply to Mr Macintyre 51 By R. F. Atkinson, Professor of Philosophy, University of York III Hume on is and ought 59 By Geoffrey Hunter, Senior Lecturer in Logic and Metaphysics, University of St Andrews IV On the interpretation of Hume 64 By Antony Flew, Professor of Philosophy, University of Keele v A reply to Professor Flew 70 By Geoffrey Hunter VI Hume on is and ought 73 By W. D. Hudson, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Exeter PART TWO: AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE 'OUGHT' TO 'IS' VII The 'is-ought': An unnecessary dualism 83 By M. Zimmerman, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of New York at Buffalo 8 Contents VIII Zimmerman's 'is-is': A schizophrenic monism 92 By Kenneth Hanly, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Brandon University, Canada IX A note on the 'is-ought' barrier 95 By M. Zimmerman PART THREE: ATTEMPTS TO DERIVE 'OUGHT' FROM 'rs' X The gap between 'is' and 'should' 99 By Max Black, Professor of Philosophy, Cornell University, New York XI The possibilities of moral advice 114 By D. Z,. Phillips, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University College, Swansea XII How to derive 'ought' from 'is' 120 By J. R. Searle, Professor of Philosophy, University of California XIII On not deriving 'ought' from 'is' 135 By Antony Flew, Professor of Philosophy, University of Keele XIV The promising game 144 By R. M. Hare, White's Professor of Moral Philosophy and Fellow of Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford XV On deriving 'ought' from 'is' 157 ]. E. McClellan and B. P. Komisar, Pro- fessors of Philosophy, Temple University College of Education, Philadelphia XVI How not to derive 'ought' from 'is' 163 By James Thomson, Professor of Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Mrs Judith Thomson, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology XVII The 'is-ought' controversy 168 By W. D. Hudson, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Exeter