Phil-100A-Hndt-5-F-10

Phil-100A-Hndt-5-F-10

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: knowledge?) Meta ­question: Do we have the semantic or epistemic questions in mind when we ask whether one can infer an “ought” from an ”is”? Observation: Creakle will not challenge these inferences. He will challenge the first premise. Question: Will anyone (except an academic skeptic) question the validity or cogency of Copperfield’s inference? 2. On inferring “ought” from “is” Claim 1: S can know p; p can entail q; and S can directly infer q from p; and yet S can still fail to know q in these circumstances (see Moral Epistemology, p. 99). Water Leap (A) There is water in the test tube. Therefore, (B) There is H2O in the test tube. Handout 5: Moral Knowledge? Claim 2: S can know p; p can entail q; S can directly infer q from p; and the fact that p entails q can be knowable a priori (or by reasoning alone); and yet S can still fail to know q in these circumstances (see Moral Epistemology, p. 104). Swifty’s Leap (C) There are no positive integers x, y and z such tha...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 11/11/2010 for the course PHIL 100A taught by Professor Mcmahon during the Fall '09 term at UCSB.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online