The logical rule which forbids inferring moral or normative conclusions from factual premises was attributed -by the first analytical authors who dealt with this issue (Hare, Prior, Nowell-Smith)- to David Hume, getting to be known as Hume's Law. However, since then, this attribution has been strongly contested. The purpose of this paper is to systematize the arguments of this discussion from its origin - in a work of A.C. MacIntyre- until the intervention of J.M. Finnis. The reason for this is that all the core problems surrounding the interpretation of the text of Hume are already stated -even though the discussion in question is not closed.