- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
This is the statement that what is due is not deduced from what is. You can't logically deduce what should be from what is. Attempts to do this are very widespread and invariably wrong. In fact, all arguments to the majority – “we believe that this is right and therefore so right” or to the current state of affairs “so it is and therefore it should be” – are erroneous, they are cut off by Hume's Guillotine.
There are also more exotic variants of errors, for example, Marxism says “so it will be and therefore it should be”.
Is this argument acceptable? It's up to you to decide. But is it logical? Definitely not. This is what Hume's thesis says.
Hume merely pointed out that what is does not follow as it should be.
Here is the essence of his statement from the Treatise on Human Nature:
At the same time, he himself uses the same unfounded claim: “the basis must be indicated.”
That is, at least from his point of view, the laws of logic must be fulfilled. Otherwise, the principle itself is irrelevant and not applicable.
What else should there be, despite Hume's principle?
Note that statements about due implicitly assume that at least one observer is needed, and he has the necessary set of tools so that these statements can be verified in principle. And, since observers are social beings, every statement about what is due implicitly contains the requirement that human society in principle must survive.
But the need for the survival of at least a society of logical observers is in itself a powerful ethical requirement.
Adding this to the law on the survival of the fittest communities, we find that the introduction of a new ethics should not reduce the adaptability of society.
That is, due cannot be a degradation of existing things.
In short, this is a logical technique that denies the transition from a statement based on existence(for example, I have a cat) to a statement about duty( I have a cat and I have to walk and cherish it).
You need to understand the boundaries of the application.
The guillotine is a strictly sensualistic (this is such a philosophy) technique, and an ethical one at that.
However, it has nothing to do with logic.
There are many logics where existence encourages action, from the theory of factors to the theory of categories.
Therefore, the guillotine cannot be applied in mathematics, and the guillotine is not applicable in modal logics.
That is, it is not a universal principle, but a postulate of a specific ethical system.