Problems with Searle’s Derivation?
- Edmund WallAffiliated withDepartment of Philosophy, East Carolina University Email author
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
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.
KeywordsDescriptive statement Evaluative statement Hill, Scott Is/Ought distinction Searle’s derivation of “ought” from “is”
- Problems with Searle’s Derivation?
Volume 39, Issue 3 , pp 571-580
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Descriptive statement
- Evaluative statement
- Hill, Scott
- Is/Ought distinction
- Searle’s derivation of “ought” from “is”
- Edmund Wall (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Philosophy, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, 27858, USA