, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 571–580

Problems with Searle’s Derivation?


DOI: 10.1007/s11406-010-9287-0

Cite this article as:
Wall, E. Philosophia (2011) 39: 571. doi:10.1007/s11406-010-9287-0


In his paper, “How to Derive ‘Ought’ From ‘Is,’” John R. Searle made a valiant attempt to derive an ought-statement from purely descriptive statements. In a recent issue of Philosophia, Scott Hill has offered criticisms of that proposed derivation. I argue that Hill has not established any errors in Searle's proposed derivation.


Descriptive statementEvaluative statementHill, ScottIs/Ought distinctionSearle’s derivation of “ought” from “is”

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyEast Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA