Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Problems with Searle’s Derivation?

Problems with Searle’s Derivation? 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Philosophia Springer Journals

Problems with Searle’s Derivation?

Wall, Edmund
Philosophia , Volume 39 (3) – Oct 23, 2010
Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journal/problems-with-searle-s-derivation-rtJVRq06bn

References (5)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Subject
Philosophy; Philosophy, general; Epistemology; Ethics; Philosophy of Language; Philosophy of Mind; Philosophy of Science
ISSN
0048-3893
eISSN
1574-9274
DOI
10.1007/s11406-010-9287-0
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

Philosophia – Springer Journals

Published: Oct 23, 2010

There are no references for this article.