Abstract

Searle’s famous attempt at what might loosely be called deriving ought from is has received much critical attention; but the main lines of attack on his attempt have been irrelevant, mistaken, or otherwise defective. I shall here offer an account of what, I feel, really centrally has gone wrong with his attempt. I shall use the version of the derivation attempt which is found in Searle’s book, Speech Acts.The attempted derivation has, as its important steps, the following statements:S uttered the words, “I hereby promise to perform A for you, H.”S promised to perform A for H.S placed himself under a obligation to perform A for H.S is under a obligation to perform A for H.S ought to do A for H.