{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/19221"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/19221","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Suggestions for Deontic Logicians","abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to make a suggestion to deontic logic: Respect Hume\\'s Law, the answer to the is-ought problem that says that all ought-talk is completely cut off from is-talk. Most deontic logicians have sought another solution: Namely, the solution that says that we can bridge the is-ought gap. Thus, a century\\'s worth of research into these normative systems of logic has lead to many attempts at doing just that. At the same time, the field of deontic logic has come to be plagued with paradox. My argument essentially depends upon there being a substantive relation between this betrayal of Hume and the plethora of paradoxes that have appeared in two-adic (binary normative operator), one-adic (unary normative operator), and zero-adic (constant normative operator) deontic systems, expressed in the traditions of von Wright, Kripke, and Anderson, respectively. My suggestion has two motivations: First, to rid the philosophical literature of its puzzles and second, to give Hume\\'s Law a proper formalization. Exploring the issues related to this project also points to the idea that maybe we should re-engineer (e.g., further generalize) our classical calculus, which might involve the adoption of many-valued logics somewhere down the line.","abstract_html":"The purpose of this paper is to make a suggestion to deontic logic: Respect Hume\\'s Law, the answer to the is-ought problem that says that all ought-talk is completely cut off from is-talk. Most deontic logicians have sought another solution: Namely, the solution that says that we can bridge the is-ought gap. Thus, a century\\'s worth of research into these normative systems of logic has lead to many attempts at doing just that. At the same time, the field of deontic logic has come to be plagued with paradox. My argument essentially depends upon there being a substantive relation between this betrayal of Hume and the plethora of paradoxes that have appeared in two-adic (binary normative operator), one-adic (unary normative operator), and zero-adic (constant normative operator) deontic systems, expressed in the traditions of von Wright, Kripke, and Anderson, respectively. My suggestion has two motivations: First, to rid the philosophical literature of its puzzles and second, to give Hume\\'s Law a proper formalization. Exploring the issues related to this project also points to the idea that maybe we should re-engineer (e.g., further generalize) our classical calculus, which might involve the adoption of many-valued logics somewhere down the line.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Johnson, Cory"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Arts","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Philosophy","degree_department":"Philosophy","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Pitt, Joseph C."],"committee_members":["Coffey, Kevin","Faraci, David"],"year":2013,"date_issued":"2013-01-23","date_published":"2013-01-23","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:06Z","subjects":["Deontic Logic","Hume's Law","Is-Ought Problem","Many-Valued Logics"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["vt_gsexam:139"],"render_values":[{"text":"vt_gsexam:139","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/19221","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Pitt, Joseph C."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Coffey, Kevin","Faraci, David"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Philosophy"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Johnson, Cory"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2013-02-19T22:38:41Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2013-02-19T22:38:41Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2013-01-23"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Philosophy"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Arts"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Deontic Logic","Hume's Law","Is-Ought Problem","Many-Valued Logics"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["vt_gsexam:139"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/19221"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The purpose of this paper is to make a suggestion to deontic logic: Respect Hume\\'s Law, the answer to the is-ought problem that says that all ought-talk is completely cut off from is-talk. Most deontic logicians have sought another solution: Namely, the solution that says that we can bridge the is-ought gap. Thus, a century\\'s worth of research into these normative systems of logic has lead to many attempts at doing just that. At the same time, the field of deontic logic has come to be plagued with paradox. My argument essentially depends upon there being a substantive relation between this betrayal of Hume and the plethora of paradoxes that have appeared in two-adic (binary normative operator), one-adic (unary normative operator), and zero-adic (constant normative operator) deontic systems, expressed in the traditions of von Wright, Kripke, and Anderson, respectively. My suggestion has two motivations: First, to rid the philosophical literature of its puzzles and second, to give Hume\\'s Law a proper formalization. Exploring the issues related to this project also points to the idea that maybe we should re-engineer (e.g., further generalize) our classical calculus, which might involve the adoption of many-valued logics somewhere down the line."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Arts"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["ETD"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Suggestions for Deontic Logicians"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Pitt, Joseph C."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Coffey, Kevin","Faraci, David"],"dc:contributor.department":["Philosophy"],"dc:creator":["Johnson, Cory"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2013-02-19T22:38:41Z"],"dc:date.available":["2013-02-19T22:38:41Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2013-01-23"],"dc:description.abstract":["The purpose of this paper is to make a suggestion to deontic logic: Respect Hume\\'s Law, the answer to the is-ought problem that says that all ought-talk is completely cut off from is-talk. Most deontic logicians have sought another solution: Namely, the solution that says that we can bridge the is-ought gap. Thus, a century\\'s worth of research into these normative systems of logic has lead to many attempts at doing just that. At the same time, the field of deontic logic has come to be plagued with paradox. My argument essentially depends upon there being a substantive relation between this betrayal of Hume and the plethora of paradoxes that have appeared in two-adic (binary normative operator), one-adic (unary normative operator), and zero-adic (constant normative operator) deontic systems, expressed in the traditions of von Wright, Kripke, and Anderson, respectively. My suggestion has two motivations: First, to rid the philosophical literature of its puzzles and second, to give Hume\\'s Law a proper formalization. Exploring the issues related to this project also points to the idea that maybe we should re-engineer (e.g., further generalize) our classical calculus, which might involve the adoption of many-valued logics somewhere down the line."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Arts"],"dc:format.medium":["ETD"],"dc:identifier.other":["vt_gsexam:139"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/19221"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["Deontic Logic","Hume's Law","Is-Ought Problem","Many-Valued Logics"],"dc:title":["Suggestions for Deontic Logicians"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Philosophy"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Arts"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:06Z"}