Q&A: Truth and Not Stability
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Truth and Not Stability
Question
In the book you talked about the rational basis for values (which basically does not exist), and you mentioned Hume there, who argued that a norm cannot be derived from facts.
Why not, really?
If a certain feeling exists in me, why can’t that lead to the conclusion that something ought to be done?
Answer
Hume’s distinction is a logical one. An argument whose premises are factual and whose conclusion is a norm is invalid. But if you add a bridging premise, it can be valid.
The argument that it is forbidden to hit because it hurts is invalid. But if you add the premise that one may not cause pain, then it becomes valid.