Editing Is–ought problem (section)

=== Misunderstanding ===
[[Hilary Putnam]] argues that philosophers who accept Hume's "is–ought" distinction reject his reasons in making it, and thus undermine the entire claim.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Putnam |first=Hilary |url=https://archive.org/details/hilary-putnam-the-collapse-of-the-fact-value-dichotomy-and-other-essays-harvard-university-press-2004 |title=The Collapse of the Fact-Value Dichotomy and Other Essays |date=2002 |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |isbn=978-0-674-00905-9 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/hilary-putnam-the-collapse-of-the-fact-value-dichotomy-and-other-essays-harvard-university-press-2004/page/21 21-22] |author-link=Hilary Putnam}}</ref>

Various scholars have also indicated that, in the very work where Hume argues for the is–ought problem, Hume himself derives an "ought" from an "is".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Baier |first1=Annette C. |author1-link=Annette Baier |editor-last=Pigden |editor-first=Charles R. |title=Hume on Is and Ought |chapter=Hume's Own 'Ought' Conclusions |date=2010 |publisher=[[Palgrave Macmillan]] |location=Hampshire |isbn=9780230205208}}</ref> Such seeming inconsistencies in Hume have led to an ongoing debate over whether Hume actually held to the is–ought problem in the first place, or whether he meant that ought inferences can be made but only with good argumentation.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Pigden |first1=Charles R. |title=Hume on Is and Ought  |date=2010 |publisher=[[Palgrave Macmillan]] |location=Hampshire |isbn=9780230205208}}</ref><!--This is kinda beyond me as I don't own the book and it's kinda out of my wheelhouse to summarize the multiple essays in the book.  Specification may be helpful-->