<電子ブック>
The Is-Ought Problem : An Investigation in Philosophical Logic / by G. Schurz
(Trends in Logic, Studia Logica Library. ISSN:22127313 ; 1)
版 | 1st ed. 1997. |
---|---|
出版者 | Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands : Imprint: Springer |
出版年 | 1997 |
本文言語 | 英語 |
大きさ | X, 332 p : online resource |
著者標目 | *Schurz, G author SpringerLink (Online service) |
件 名 | LCSH:Logic LCSH:Philosophy and social sciences LCSH:Science -- Philosophy 全ての件名で検索 FREE:Logic FREE:Philosophy of the Social Sciences FREE:Philosophy of Science |
一般注記 | 1. Philosophical Background and Program of the Study -- 2. The Logical Background: A.D.1-Logics -- 3. The Logical Explication of Hume’s Thesis -- 4. The General Hume Thesis GH -- 5. The Special Hume Thesis SH -- 6. Weakened Versions of Hume’s Thesis in A.D.I-Logics with Bridge Principles -- 7. A.D.1-Logics with Weak Alethic Fragments: ? as a Subjective Propositional Attitude -- 8. Generalizations -- 9. Some Applications to Ethical Arguments -- 10. The Problems of Identity and Existence -- 11. Are There Analytic Bridge Principles? A Philosophical Investigation -- 12. Are Synthetic Bridge Principles Scientifically Justifiable? -- A.1 Interchange of substitution for predicates and for individual variables -- A.2 Transitivity of predicate substitutions -- A.5 Preservation of frame-validity under ?-substitution -- A.6 Advancing ?-, a- and d-rule -- A.7 Model-completeness for a.d.l-logics -- A.8 Singleton frames for a.d.1-logics which are not propositionally representable -- A.9 Canonical a.0-logics with incomplete 1-counterparts -- A.10 Canonicity transfer from a.0- to a.1-logics -- A.11 Canonicity transfer from monomodal to combined bimodal 1-logics -- A.12 Halldéncompleteness and the Bolzano-criterion -- A.13 Correspondence and canonicity for (N1-5) -- A.14 Domains of j.1.-models -- A.16 Characterization of a.d.(G)2-logics -- A.17 Admissibility of (?GR) -- Table of Definitions, Lemmata, Propositions, Theorems, Corollaries, Facts, Figures and Problems -- Notes Can OUGHT be derived from IS? This book presents an investigation of this time-honored problem by means of alethic-deontic predicate logic. New in this study is the leitmotif of relevance: is-ought inferences indeed exist, but they are all irrelevant in a precise logical sense. New proof techniques establish this result for very broad classes of logics. A profound philosophical analysis of is-ought bridge principles supplements the logical study. The final results imply incisive limitations for the justifiability of ethics as opposed to empirical science HTTP:URL=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3375-5 |
目次/あらすじ
所蔵情報を非表示
電子ブック | 配架場所 | 資料種別 | 巻 次 | 請求記号 | 状 態 | 予約 | コメント | ISBN | 刷 年 | 利用注記 | 指定図書 | 登録番号 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
電子ブック | オンライン | 電子ブック |
|
|
Springer eBooks | 9789401733755 |
|
電子リソース |
|
EB00230105 |
類似資料
この資料の利用統計
このページへのアクセス回数:6回
※2017年9月4日以降