Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:38:14.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Cool Reflexion” and the Criticism of Values: Is, Ought, and Objectivity in Hume's Social Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Stephen G. Salkever
Stephen G. Salkever*
Affiliation:
Bryn Mawr College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Is the fact/value distinction incompatible with the possibility of a social science which is both objective and evaluative (or normative)? Does support of the latter require rejection of the former and vice versa? This article presents an indirect argument against the incompatibility of the fact/value distinction and an objectively evaluative social science. My procedure is to show that David Hume, whose is/ought distinction is the locus classicus of the fact/value distinction, is committed both to the view that values cannot be derived from facts and to the view that social science is not (and should not be) value-neutral. Furthermore, Hume's position is free from any logical flaws. My conclusion is that it is false to say that the fact/value distinction entails a value-neutral social science, and that it is therefore utterly unnecessary for critics of such a science to waste their time attempting to “bridge the gap” between facts and values.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , September 1980 , pp. 70 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, Henry D., ed. (1948). Hume's Moral and Political Philosophy. New York: Hafner Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Årdal, Påll (1966). Passion and Value in Hume's Treatise. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis White (1974), “‘Was-Must Be’ and ‘Is-Ought’ in Hume.” Philosophical Studies 26: 219–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Max (1969). “The Gap Between ‘Is’ and ‘Should.’” In Hudson, W. D. (ed.), The Is-Ought Question. New York: St. Martin's Press, pp. 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassidy, John (1977). “The Nature of Hume's Inductive Scepticism.” Ratio 19: 47–54.Google Scholar
Flew, Anthony (1969). “On the Interpretation of Hume.” In Hudson, W. D. (ed.), The Is-Ought Question. New York: St. Martin's Press, pp. 64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, Duncan (1975). Hume's Philosophical Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, Mary (1977). “Rationality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 6:193–225.Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. (1964). The Language of Morals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, Jonathan (1976). Hume's Moral Epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David (1955; first published 1748). An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Hendel, Charles W.. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Hume, David (1957; first published 1751). An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Edited by Hendel, Charles W.. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Hume, David (1888; first published 1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by Selby-Bigge, L. A.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Irwin, T. H. (1975). “Aristotle on Reason, Desire, and Virtue.” Journal of Philosophy 72: 567–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, A. C. (1969). “Hume on ‘Is’ and ‘Ought.’” In Hudson, W. D. (ed.), The Is-Ought Question. New York: St. Martin's Press, pp. 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Richard W. (1979). “Reason and Commitment in the Social Sciences.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 8: 240–66.Google Scholar
Salkever, Stephen G. (1978). “Interpreting Rousseau's Paradoxes.” Eighteenth Century Studies 12: 204–26.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). “How to Derive ‘Ought’ From ‘Is.’” In Hudson, W. D. (ed.), The Is-Ought Question. New York: St. Martin's Press, 120–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.