Hume would not have agreed that if you don’t eat, then you die. (I know the question was in the context of is-ought, but really he ought to have starved to death because of causality and induction.)

That I agree with, but again only partially. He ate because he felt like it and not because of inferences. As a result (which he himself would not necessarily admit), he also didn’t die.

David Hume did not eat. How do you infer from the fact that he lived that he also ate? (That is the fallacy of causality.)

Why not simply answer that he agrees there is a probability that there is a consequential connection; he argued only that there is no proven connection.

Aharon, a beautiful remark, but in my opinion not correct.

I, as someone who knows that there is a causal connection, know that if he lived then he ate. So I ask myself why David Hume ate. This is not a claim against him of inconsistency, but a question for me as to how I interpret what he did.

Moshe,

What is a consequential connection: causation or correlation? He denies the existence of causation and claims that it is a fiction of our thought.

Does he deny causation, or claim that there is no evidence for it?

Because there is no evidence, he denies it (he was an empiricist).

I didn’t understand. Even an empiricist is not allowed to eat out of some slight doubt lest, despite there being no evidence, it is in fact so?

It’s not forbidden to him; rather, there is no point. Does he really seriously think there is no reason at all to think that the force of gravity is actually real, for example? If he were to concede that there is some probability, he would become a rationalist (that is, not an empiricist).