On deriving ‘ought’ from ‘is’
A new hand turns to an old task when John R. Searle joins those others who purport to offer transport from ‘is’ to ‘ought’ without using such vehicles as ‘evaluative statements, moral principles, or anything of the sort.’1 Mr Searle’s demonstration has two steps. The first presents and defends an instance of an evaluation derived exclusively from descriptive premises. The second step sketches a theory of language capable of generating an indefinite number of cases of the sort given in step one.