‘Ought’ and ‘is’ (i)—A Matter of Logic?

FOUR chapters ago I raised, but did not answer, the question whether the slogan “An ‘ought’ can never be derived from an ‘is’ ” is analytic or synthetic. It is time now to turn back to this question. As I said in that chapter, the distinction between evaluation and description is fundamental to the whole of our argument; and this, whether I had said it or not, must by now be patently evident. Description on the one hand and evaluation on the other, fact and value, statement and value judgment; all of these distinctions, on which I have been placing so much weight, are summed up in the alleged impossibility of deriving ¹ an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. So if this is supposed to be impossible, we need to be quite clear why.