Iirc, Hume’s guillotine states essentially that a statement of what should be cannot be derived from any system of statements only about what is. That is to say, morality cannot be derived only from reality. Basically, you need to have a set of axioms (which in this context are called “ethical systems”) in order to reduce questions of morality to questions of fact.
The argument ignores Hume’s guillotine in the weirdest appeal to nature I’ve ever seen in my entire life.
That’s where when you cut a magnet in half both have a north and south pole?
Iirc, Hume’s guillotine states essentially that a statement of what should be cannot be derived from any system of statements only about what is. That is to say, morality cannot be derived only from reality. Basically, you need to have a set of axioms (which in this context are called “ethical systems”) in order to reduce questions of morality to questions of fact.
Apologies for any errors I am only half-awake.
When translating this to the animal realm it’s pretty clear what part of the male to cut in half, but what part of the female specimen would we cut?