Good News for the Logical Autonomy of Ethics

Scott Hill University of Massachusetts Amherst
Journal
Argumentation
Published
2009-04-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-008-9126-7
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (12) · 2 in this index

  1. Dreier, J. 2002. Metaethics and normative commitment. Philosophical Issues, 12. In Realism and relativism, ed…
  2. Hill, S. 2008. ‘Is’–‘Ought’ derivations and ethical taxonomies. Philosophia 36: 545–566.
    Philosophia  
  3. Ethical intuitionism
  4. Hume, D. 1739. Treatise of human nature (Reprint, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus 1992).
  5. Karmo, T. 1988. Some valid (but no sound) arguments trivially span the “Is”–“Ought” gap. Mind 97: 252–257.
    Mind  
Show all 12 →
  1. Maitzen, S. 1998. Closing the “Is”–“Ought” gap. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 28: 349–366.
    Canadian Journal of Philosophy  
  2. Maitzen, S. 2006. The impossibility of local skepticism. Philosophia 34: 453–464.
    Philosophia  
  3. Maitzen, S. 2008. Anti-autonomism defended: A reply to Hill. Philosophia 36: 567–574.
    Philosophia  
  4. Argumentation
  5. Argumentation
  6. Nelson, M.T. 2007. More bad news for the logical autonomy of ethics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37: 203–216.
    Canadian Journal of Philosophy  
  7. Prior, A.N. 1960. The autonomy of ethics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 38: 197–206.
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy