Legal Transactions and the Derivation of 'Ought' from 'Is'

15 Pages Posted: 27 Apr 2010

See all articles by Jaap Hage

Jaap Hage

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: April 26, 2010

Abstract

Searle argued by means of an example that it is possible to derive an ought-conclusion from premises that do not contain an ought. This argument, which used promises as example, was not completely successful, because it may be read as presupposing the ought-premise that promises ought to be kept. This paper aims to rescue Searle’s underlying idea by replacing promises in the argument with legal transactions, which are not confined to bringing about obligations. After having argued that Searle’s argument can be rescued by this amendment, the paper discusses some possible objections against the derivation of ought from is.

Keywords: gap between is and ought, institutional facts, legal transactions, Searle, contracts

Suggested Citation

Hage, Jaap, Legal Transactions and the Derivation of 'Ought' from 'Is' (April 26, 2010). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1596014 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1596014

Jaap Hage (Contact Author)

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
59
Abstract Views
819
Rank
419,869
PlumX Metrics