ABSTRACT
I find myself in the somewhat awkward position of needing to formulate a rebuttal to a chapter which draws essentially the same conclusion as mine with respect to the main focus of this chapter—Skinner’s naturalist ethics. Garrett and I (and possibly Skinner) agree that Skinner has not succeeded in logically deriving a system of ought-statements from his behavioral science of is-statements. We converge on this conclusion through different although parallel routes, and it is instructive to analyze the similarities.
