(with Gillian Russell) “Barriers to Consequence,” p. 243–259 in Hume on Is and Ought, edited by Charles Pigden, Palgrave, 2010.

 download pdf

In this paper we show how the formal counterexamples to Hume’s Law (to the effect that you cannot derive a properly moral statement from properly descriptive statements) are of a piece with formal counterexample to other, plausible “inferential barrier theses”. We use this fact to motivate a uniform treatment of barrier theses which is immune from formal counterexample. We provide a uniform semantic representation of barrier theses which has applications in the case of what we call “Russell’s Law” (you can’t derive a universal from particulars) and “Hume’s Second Law” (you can’t derive a statement about the future from statements about the past). We then finally apply these results to formal treatments of deontic logic to show how to avoid formal counterexamples to Hume’s Law in a plausible and motivated manner.

Do you like this, or do you have a comment? Then please  share or reply on Twitter, or  email me.

← Relevant Agents | Writing Archive | Proof Theory and Meaning: the context of deducibility →


I’m Greg Restall, and this is my personal website. ¶ I am the Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews.



To receive updates from this site, you can subscribe to the  RSS feed of all updates to the site in an RSS feed reader, or follow me on Mastodon at  @consequently@scholar.social, where I’ll update you if anything is posted.