True and unstable
In the book you talked about the rational basis for values (which by and large do not exist)
And you mentioned there the day that claims that a norm cannot be a conclusion from facts.
Why not actually?
The fact that I have a certain emotion, why can’t it lead to the need to do something?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
Hume’s distinction is a logical distinction. An argument whose premises are factual and whose conclusion is a norm is not valid. But if you add a bridging premise, it can be valid.
The argument that hitting is forbidden because it hurts is invalid. But if you add the assumption that it is forbidden to cause pain, it will be valid.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
