Table Of ContentControversies 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
