Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

[zefreak]

@Smiling Dave

@zefreak

@Smiling Dave

Can someone help me out and give a simple example of starting with two facts and arriving at an “ought” conclusion?

Good luck. We had an entire thread on just this subject a while ago, and not one surfaced that wasn’t guilty of containing hidden ought premises.

Do you mean this thread right here, or another thread? If the latter, can you link to it please?

How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?

I don’t know how any deductive natural rights theory could follow anything other than the following formula: __ is __, therefore __ is __, therefore __ is __, […] therefore __ should __. But how can any deductive argument like this derive a “should” from an “is”? For any given natural right, can anyone fill in the blanks of the above formula, and explain to me how it makes sense? Or if a natural rights theory rests on another kind of model, can someone explain to me how it is formed?