This article examines an allegedly Humean solution provided by J. Baird Callicott to the problem of the is/ought dichotomy. It also examines an allegedly Humean argument provided by him for the land ethic's summary moral precept. It concludes that neither the solution nor the argument is Humean or cogent.
BrennanA.1998. ‘Poverty, Puritanism and Environmental Conflict’, Environmental Values7: 305–31.
2.
CallicottJ. B.1980. ‘Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair’, reprinted in Callicott 1989: pp. 15–38, 268–75.
3.
CallicottJ. B.1982a. ‘Hume's Is/Ought Dichotomy and the Relation of Ecology to Leopold's Land Ethic’, reprinted in Callicott 1989: 117–27, 286–8.
4.
CallicottJ. B.1982b. ‘Traditional American Indian and Western European Attitudes Toward Nature: An Overview’, reprinted in Callicott 1989: 177–201, 300–3.
5.
CallicottJ. B.1984. ‘Non-anthropocentric Value Theory and Environmental Ethics’, American Philosophical Quarterly21: 299–309.
6.
CallicottJ. B.1985. ‘Intrinsic Value, Quantum Theory, and Environmental Ethics’, reprinted in Callicott 1989: 157–74, 296–300.
7.
CallicottJ. B.1986a. ‘On the Intrinsic Value of Nonhuman Species’, reprinted in Callicott 1989: 129–55, 288–96.
8.
CallicottJ. B.1986b. ‘The Search for an Environmental Ethic’, in ReganT. (ed) Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 2nd ed., New York: Random House, 1986, pp. 381–424.
9.
CallicottJ. B.1987a. ‘The Conceptual Foundations of the Land Ethic’, reprinted in Callicott 1989: 75–99, 279–82.
10.
CallicottJ. B.1987b. ‘The scientific Substance of the Land Ethic’, in TannerT. ed. Aldo Leopold: The Man and His Legacy, Ankeny, IA: Soil Conservation Society of America, pp. 87–104.
11.
CallicottJ. B.1988. ‘Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Back Together Again’, reprinted in Callicott 1989: 49–59, 276–7.
12.
CallicottJ. B.1989. In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy, Albany: State University of New York Press.
13.
CallicottJ. B.1990. ‘The Case against Moral Pluralism’, reprinted in Callicott 1999a: 143–169.
14.
CallicottJ. B.1992a. ‘Can a Theory of Moral Sentiment Support a Normative Environmental Ethic?’ reprinted in Callicott 1999a: 99–115.
15.
CallicottJ. B.1992b. ‘Aldo Leopold's Concept of Ecosystem Health’, reprinted in Callicott 1999a: 333–45.
16.
CallicottJ. B.1994. Earth's Insight: A Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback, Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
CallicottJ. B.1996. ‘Do Deconstructive Ecology and Sociobiology Undermine Leopold's Land Ethic?’, reprinted in Callicott 1999a: 117–39.
18.
CallicottJ. B.1999a. Beyond the Land Ethic: More Essays in Environmental Philosophy, Albany: State University of New York Press.
19.
CallicottJ. B.1999b. ‘Holistic Environmental Ethics and the Problem of Ecofascism’, in Callicott 1999a: 59–76.
20.
CallicottJ. B.2001. ‘The Land Ethic’, in JamiesonD. (ed) A Companion to Environmental Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, pp. 206–17.
21.
ChappellV. C. (ed) 1968. Hume: A Collection of Critical Essays, London: University of Notre Dame Press.
22.
FlewA.1963. ‘On the Interpretation of Hume’, reprinted in Chappell 1968.: 278–86.
23.
FootP. R.1963. ‘Hume on Moral Judgement’, in PearsD. F. (ed) David Hume: A Symposium, London: Macmillan, 1963: 67–76.
24.
HareR. M.1954/5. ‘Universalisability’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society55: 295–312.
25.
HumeD.1739/40. A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. Selby-BiggeL. A., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.
26.
HumeD.1751. An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, ed. BeauchampT. L., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
27.
KantI.1785. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. BeckL. W., New York: Bobbs-Merril, 1959.
28.
LeopoldA.1949. A Sand County Almanac, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
LewisD. K.1989. ‘Dispositional Theories of Value’, Proceedings of Aristotelian Society, Supp. Vol. 63: 113–37.
30.
LewisD. K.1996. ‘Desire as Belief II’, Mind105: 303–13.
