Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:19:10.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Deriving a Morally Significant ‘Ought’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Alan Gewirth
Alan Gewirth
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy , Volume 54 , Issue 208 , April 1979 , pp. 231 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1979

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

1 Philosophy 51, No. 197 (07 1976), 346–348.Google Scholar

2 See Prior, A. N., ‘The Autonomy of Ethics’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 38 (12 1960), 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Black, Max, ‘The Gap Between “Is” and “Should”’, Philosophical Review 73 (04 1964), 167–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 See Rynin, David, ‘The Autonomy of Morals’, Mind 66 (07 1957), 313Google Scholar; Tranoy, K. E., ‘“Ought” Implies “Can”: A Bridge from Fact to Norm’, Ratio 14 (1972)Google Scholar; Mavrodes, George I., ‘On Deriving the Normative from the Non-normative,’ Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 53 (1968), 353ff.Google Scholar

4 Gewirth, Alan, ‘The “Is-Ought” Problem Resolved’, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47 (1974), 34–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar