Problems with Searle’s Derivation?
- 135 Downloads
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”
- Hill, S. (2008). ’Is’-‘Ought’ derivations and ethical taxonomies. Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel, 36(4), 545–556.Google Scholar
- Maitzen, S. (2008). Anti-autonomism defended: a reply to Hill. Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel, 36(4), 569.Google Scholar
- Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language (p. 188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar