{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.07169117647058823, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02022058823529412, 'mean_word_length': 4.1415094339622645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
You Cannot Derive "Ought" From "Is"

In his recent discussion, Robert V. Hannaford argues that we ought to derive ‘ought’ from ‘is’. (‘You Ought to Derive “Ought” from “Is”’, Ethics, vol. 82 (January 1972), pp. 155-62. All page references in the text are to this article.) In this response I shall argue that whether we ought to or not, we do not and can not derive ‘ought’ from ‘is’ and that in the procedure used by Hannaford he does not derive ‘ought’ from ‘is’ but does muddy the water concerning what is involved in generating moral rules.