David Hume's Law: Non-Cognitivism?

The philosophical debate during the mid-1900’s is the “No-Ought-From-Is” was then debated between the philosophers and thinkers of that time. Even today's philosophers still debated about this problem. David Hume a Scottish philosopher, who is known for “No-Ought-From-is” or Hume’s law. On “Hume on is and Ought”, Pigden recognizes some errors and questions the NOFI. Some of the errors are the reasoning behind the argument itself and whether NOFI supports non-cognitivism? Finally, Pigden points out what error that all parties are wrong about: the usage of terms of “ought” and a “is”. Then, Pigden claims that philosophers of that time, who thought that Hume’s “No-Ought-From-Is” and G.E. Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy are similar. Although the philosophers of that time mistaken that these two works are the same. Naturalistic fallacy is the reduction of moral properties to natural ones: goodness. On the other hand, Hume’s law is that there is no logically valid inference from descriptive statements to normative statements.
First, usually morality has a way of reasoning, and it establishes the being of a God. Hume’s idea seems to be that one cannot assume the moral conclusion with the term “ought” from non-moral premises. Therefore, NOFI is used in Hume’s …show more content…
The first error is the perceptive and significance behind the argument itself. Some errors in the argument are the lack of clarity about the meaning of words are the crucial source of error in this argument. It is not difficult to see how, if one not make the way in which one was using the term “moral” clearly. Pigden recognizes some errors of the NOFI. Some of the errors are the reasoning and meaning behind the argument itself and whether NOFI supports non-cognitivism? Then, Pigden points out what error that all parties are wrong about: weather Hume is a naturalist or not? The difference between both works that has goodness as the moral