In defense of common sense. David Hume on ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’

In the article the author rejects traditional, logical interpretation of the famous“Is-Ought Paragraph” from David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature.He argues that most of the interpreters failed to grasp the wide philosophicalbackground of the IsOP, which is, generally speaking, a passionate discussionbetween ethical rationalists and ethical anti-rationalists in the 17th and 18thcentury British philosophy. The author shows that the Hume’s main aim inthe IsOP is to strengthen his previous arguments against ethical rationalismand to reinforce (and not subvert at all) the common-sense (vulgar) systems ofmorality, likewise he did in the first book of the Treatise… in case of the theoryof knowledge. The author argues that there is no putative thesis of logic in theIsOP, which some scholars call “Hume’s Law”.In the article the author rejects traditional, logical interpretation of the famous“Is-Ought Paragraph” from David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature.He argues that most of the interpreters failed to grasp the wide philosophicalbackground of the IsOP, which is, generally speaking, a passionate discussionbetween ethical rationalists and ethical anti-rationalists in the 17th and 18thcentury British philosophy. The author shows that the Hume’s main aim inthe IsOP is to strengthen his previous arguments against ethical rationalismand to reinforce (and not subvert at all) the common-sense (vulgar) systems ofmorality, likewise he did in the first book of the Treatise… in case of the theoryof knowledge. The author argues that there is no putative thesis of logic in theIsOP, which some scholars call “Hume’s Law”