[MD] Putnam on Is-Ought and Truth

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Craig,

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:42 PM,  <craigerb at comcast.net> wrote:

> Is the Is-Ought gap the same as the Fact/Value gap?
> Aren't there really 3 sides to the question:
> there is always a gap, never a gap or sometimes a gap?
> Have you read Searle's "How to D erive 'Ought' from 'IS'"?



I think the fact/value distinction is just to say that facts and
values are different sorts of things. Some would say that values are a
type of fact while Pirsig would say that facts are a species of value.
(The positivists would have said that talk of values is incoherent
babble.)

The is/ought gap is the philosophical problem of determining how to
derive an "ought" from a bunch of "ises." Hume said it can't be done.
Most have agreed to the extent that it is asserted as a dogma that it
can't be done. Putnam is saying "so what?" We are never in that
position of having a bunch of "is" premises and needing to derive our
very first "ought." Instead we always approach any inquiry with a
bunch of oughts in hand. For example, we think certain sorts of
arguments ought to convince.

I haven't read the Searle essay. Do you have it?

Best,
Steve