Hume's guillotine
Hume's law

The is-ought problem is also known as Hume's law, or Hume's guillotine.

It has been put into direct dialogue with Kant's moral law, and said to have provided one answer to Hume's Guillotine.

This complete severing of "is" from "ought" has been given the graphic designation of Hume's Guillotine.

The is-ought problem is also known as Hume's law, or Hume's guillotine.

Hume also put forward the is-ought problem, later called Hume's Law, denying the possibility of logically deriving what ought to be from what is.

Thus, logical positivism indirectly asserted Hume's law, the principle that is statements cannot justify ought statements, but are separated by an unbridgeable gap.

David Hartley taught that contiguity is the main law of association, and, believing that it is the primary source, Hartley ignored David Hume's law of resemblance (Warren, 1921).

Related concerns are Hume's distinction of demonstrative versus probable reasoning, Hume's law as the fact/value distinction of is versus ought, and Hume's "dilemma of determinism" that our actions are either causally determined or random.

This developed the critical tradition of 'ideology critique' within a CR framework, arguing that certain kinds of explanatory accounts could lead directly to evaluations, and thus that science could function normatively, not just descriptively, as positivism has, since Hume's Law, assumed.