Problems with Searle's Derivation?

Philosophia 39 (3):571-580 (2011)
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
Keywords Descriptive statement  Evaluative statement  Hill, Scott  Is/Ought distinction  Searle’s derivation of “ought” from “is”
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11406-010-9287-0
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 24,463
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Larry Hauser (2001). Chinese Room Argument. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
James Woodward (1984). Explanatory Asymmetries. Philosophy of Science 51 (3):421-442.
Manuel Garcia-Carpintero (1999). Searle on Perception. Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 18 (1):19-41.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

87 ( #55,371 of 1,925,541 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

3 ( #254,979 of 1,925,541 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.