Created:
Modified:
Modified:
is vs ought dichotomy
This page is from my personal notes, and has not been specifically reviewed for public consumption. It might be incomplete, wrong, outdated, or stupid. Caveat lector.David Hume pointed out that there's no logical way to get from 'is' (descriptive) statements to 'ought' (normative) statements.This is controversial, e.g., Searle claims that 'X promised to do Y' implies 'X ought to do Y'. That means any 'ought' statement can only be justified with another 'ought'. There is no way to derive normative claims starting only from an objective description of the world.
Any theory of moral realism needs to respond to this, somehow.