The Ups and Downs of Searle's Deriving "Ought" from "Is" With A Suggestion

Aydemir Y.

BEYTULHIKME-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, cilt.15, sa.1, ss.185-202, 2025 (ESCI, TRDizin) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 15 Sayı: 1
  • Basım Tarihi: 2025
  • Doi Numarası: 10.29228/beytulhikme.79148
  • Dergi Adı: BEYTULHIKME-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Central & Eastern European Academic Source (CEEAS), Index Islamicus, Philosopher's Index, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.185-202
  • Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

This study aims to observe Searle's How to Derive Ought From Is (1964). Starting with David Hume, there is a tradition that defends the idea that it is impossible to derive ought from is or, values from facts. Searle, however, claims that he suggests a new way to assess the matter, through which he believes he can solve the problem. Here, I analyze Searle's suggestion, for which I hold several objections. Along with the objections I hold, I suggest a new perspective by referring to the Background, which belongs to Searle but whose origin lies in the philosophy of philosophers such as Bourdieu. I believe that by applying the Background, the derivation becomes possible for both institutional and brute facts. Furthermore, I believe that as copulas, auxiliaries, and main verbs belong to the same group, any kind of transition among them is not mysterious.