Argumentation Apr 2009

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
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (2)

  1. Nelson (2003)
    Who Needs Valid Moral Arguments? (Dedicated to the Memory of R.M. Chisholm, 191…
    Argumentation
  2. Nelson (1995)
    Is it always fallacious to derive values from facts?
    Argumentation
Also cites 9 works outside this index ↓
  1. S Hill (2008)
    Hill, S. 2008. ‘Is’–‘Ought’ derivations and ethical taxonomies. Philosophia 36: 545–566.
    Philosophia  ↗
  2. M Huemer (2007)
    Ethical intuitionism
     ↗
  3. Hume, D. 1739. Treatise of human nature (Reprint, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus 1992).
     ↗
  4. T Karmo (1988)
    Karmo, T. 1988. Some valid (but no sound) arguments trivially span the “Is”–“Ought” gap. Mind 97: 252–257.
    Mind  ↗
  5. S Maitzen (1998)
    Maitzen, S. 1998. Closing the “Is”–“Ought” gap. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 28: 349–366.
    Canadian Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  6. S Maitzen (2006)
    Maitzen, S. 2006. The impossibility of local skepticism. Philosophia 34: 453–464.
    Philosophia  ↗
  7. S Maitzen (2008)
    Maitzen, S. 2008. Anti-autonomism defended: A reply to Hill. Philosophia 36: 567–574.
    Philosophia  ↗
  8. MT Nelson (2007)
    Nelson, M.T. 2007. More bad news for the logical autonomy of ethics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37: 203–216.
    Canadian Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  9. AN Prior (1960)
    Prior, A.N. 1960. The autonomy of ethics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 38: 197–206.
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy  ↗
CrossRef global citation count: 2 View in citation network → Build reading path →