Hume’s Law (in Gardner and Otherwise)

Abstract This chapter focuses on Hume’s Law, and on John Gardner’s views about it. It begins by reconstructing and criticizing Gardner’s understanding of Hume’s Law (as presented in one of his last published essays). Gardner takes a formal approach to the distinction between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ sentences; this approach, the chapter argues, fails. The chapter then considers a different approach, and shows that Gardner’s reasons for resisting it are unpersuasive. Moving away from Gardner’s views, the chapter suggests that under the common ‘Hume’s Law’ banner we can identify two different, independent theses rather than just one: an ‘implication’ thesis and a ‘relevance’ thesis. The chapter concludes by looking briefly at some issues raised by legal statements in connection with such theses.