Skip main navigation

Hurry, only 9 days left to get one year of Unlimited learning for £249.99 £174.99. New subscribers only. T&Cs apply

Find out more

The Is-Ought Problem

If we're to have a valid deductive argument with a moral conclusion, there must be at least one moral statement in the premise.

David Hume claimed that you can’t derive an ‘ought’ conclusion from entirely factual or ‘is’ premises. Why not? Well, here’s an example:

  1. humans die if you electrocute them (Descriptive).
  2. Tim is human. (Descriptive). Therefore,
  3. you ought not electrocute Tim. (Moral).

That looks like a valid deductive argument, but notice that premises one and two do not entail the conclusion, three. Suppose you’re an executioner somewhere that uses the electric chair and that Tim has been properly convicted of a ghastly capital offence. You might agree with premises one and two. After all, that’s why you use the electric chair. And you wouldn’t be making a logical error if you denied the conclusion.

This article is from the free online

Logical and Critical Thinking

Created by
FutureLearn - Learning For Life

Reach your personal and professional goals

Unlock access to hundreds of expert online courses and degrees from top universities and educators to gain accredited qualifications and professional CV-building certificates.

Join over 18 million learners to launch, switch or build upon your career, all at your own pace, across a wide range of topic areas.

Start Learning now