Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A purely descriptive set of premises cannot yield a presc... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Legal norms cannot be derived from purely descriptive facts about legal enactments without presupposing a foundational normative premise

    A purely descriptive set of premises cannot yield a prescriptive conclusion

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Social Contract3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Any argument concluding with a prescriptive statement must contain at least one ...Legal enactments and the actions constituting them belong to the sphere of 'is' ...Legal norms belong to the sphere of 'ought' — they are norms that purport to gui...Legal norms cannot be derived from purely descriptive facts about legal enactmen...

    Similar

    A prescriptive conclusion cannot logically follow from purely descript...94%Justifying a conclusion requires that the conclusion follows from the ...81%Justifying a conclusion requires premises that are acceptable81%A necessary conclusion follows from necessary premises.80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: lawphil-theory
    View source passageHide passage
    As Kelsen saw it, there is simply no alternative. More precisely, any alternative would violate David Hume’s injunction against deriving an “ought” from an “is”. Hume famously argued that any practical argument that concludes with some prescriptive statement, a statement of the kind that one ought to do this or that, would have to contain at least one prescriptive statement in its premises. If all the premises of an argument are descriptive, telling us what this or that is the case, then there i

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective