Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Thegosis

Sir, —Vernon Wilkinson (January 25) only strengthens suspicions of his having a Procrustean infatuation with Hume’s prestige, rather than any critical grasp of Hume’s philosophy. Hume claimed it was logically fallacious to deduce an “ought” (i.e., a prescriptive, moral rule or law) from an “is” (i.e., a descriptive, law of nature). In claiming to “follow Hume” on that point (January 11), how then, can Mr Wilkinson coherently claim that morality is, or should be, “based on” such things as “biological evolution” or “natural law”? What does “based on” mean, if not "deduced from”? The answer to that central question does, of course, have far-reaching consequences for conservative, quasibiological moralising.—Yours, etc DAVID SHANKS. January 25, 1988.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19880129.2.91.6

Bibliographic details

Press, 29 January 1988, Page 16

Word Count
116

Thegosis Press, 29 January 1988, Page 16

Thegosis Press, 29 January 1988, Page 16