Hume’s gap and the naturalistic fallacy
Now anyone who is a (i´) non-cognitivist will (I think) have to hold (ii´) as well. (This is a somewhat complex matter. See Snare 1977b.) Furthermore any (i´) non-cognitivist will have to hold (iii) as well. So anyone who has a good argument for non-cognitivism will have good reasons for accepting the other two claims as well. But of course we have seen in chapter 5 that there is not all that much in the way of argument for non-cognitivism (perhaps the apparent poor running of the alternatives). But we might consider what independent reasons there might be for believing either (ii´) or (iii), that is, apart from already believing (i´).