The is-ought gap is based on the naturalistic fallacy.
It says that making statements like "Stealing is bad for the community, therefore I ought not to steal" is wrong. This is because Hume believes morals are not empirical so you cannot make statements about them.
Hume's idea's on this are named Hume's Guillotine as he completely separates is and ought.
Statements containing 'is' are cognitive and so can be checked, whereas a statement containing 'ought' is non-cognitive, uncheckable and subjective, therefore one cannot be derived from the other.
HOWEVER
Searle says there are some exceptions to this. For example, if something is a promise it implies you ought to keep it by definition.
Comments
Report