[MD] Putnam on Is-Ought and Truth

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Steve] 
> I think the fact/value distinction is just to say that facts and 
> values are different sorts of things. 

For Searle the Is-Ought gap is the same as the fact/value gap 
& the descriptive/evaluative gap. 

[Steve] 
> 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." 

If this is right, Putnam misses the point.  Whether we NEED to or not, CAN 
we derive an "ought" from an "is"?  There might be "oughts" which cannot 
be derived & others which can.  Of the latter, CAN they only be derived from "is es".     

Craig