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”