...we could hold the is–ought problem only as a obsolete sophism, and not as a real problem.
This reminded me of something G. E. M. Anscombe wrote about Hume in Modern Moral Philosophy: (page 3 of the linked file)
I will now return to Hume. The features of Hume's philosophy which I have mentioned, like many other features of it, would incline me to think that Hume was a mere - brilliant - sophist; and his procedures are certainly sophistical.
I hadn't thought of Hume being a sophist before, but now that I have suggestions that he might have been from two sources, I wonder: Was Hume a sophist?. References to further reading along this line would be appreciated.
To describe what I currently think a sophist is, the following definition from a question by Jakob Wakem might work unless those who answer show me something better:
people who have no qualms publishing on both sides of an issue, perhaps not being able to themselves come to conclusions. This would be very interesting if there were people in philosophy who treat philosophy as a rhetorical game rather than "seriously". I don't see any reasons philosophers should disbar such practices. Producing powerful arguments on both sides of an issue would advance the conversation forward, regardless of whether the sophist believes either side.
Unlike Wakem I am not interested in modern philosophers in general. I am only interested in Hume and whether Anscombe would be justified in her view of him.
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33(124), 1-19. https://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/mmp.pdf