The author first distinguishes between evaluative and normative (or ought-)statements. While—not without some qualifications—evaluative statements can be logically derived from is-statements containing evaluative predicates, “parallel” ought-from-is derivations (OFIDs) raise problems. To address these problems, the author distinguishes between OFIDs involving (α) terms like “slave” or “chess rook” and “OFIDs” involving (β) terms like “promise” or “derive.” α-terms serve to express or describe normative emotions, attitudes, and/or hypostatizations; β-terms serve to create them (in a socio-psychological sense). While with α-terms OFIDs are possible, β-terms can be used only to make socio-psychological hypotheses. Next, the author shows that Searle’s counts-as formula selects phenomena unrelated to Searle’s examples of constitutive rules. Finally, the author shows that—pace Searle—language alone does not make OFIDs possible.

On Searle’s Derivation and Its Relation to Constitutive Rules: A Social Scientist’s Perspective / E. Fittipaldi - In: Revisiting Searle on Deriving “Ought” from “Is” / [a cura di] P. Di Lucia, E. Fittipaldi. - [s.l] : Palgrave MacMillan, 2021. - ISBN 9783030541156. - pp. 272-324 [10.1007/978-3-030-54116-3_15]

On Searle’s Derivation and Its Relation to Constitutive Rules: A Social Scientist’s Perspective

E. Fittipaldi
2021

Abstract

The author first distinguishes between evaluative and normative (or ought-)statements. While—not without some qualifications—evaluative statements can be logically derived from is-statements containing evaluative predicates, “parallel” ought-from-is derivations (OFIDs) raise problems. To address these problems, the author distinguishes between OFIDs involving (α) terms like “slave” or “chess rook” and “OFIDs” involving (β) terms like “promise” or “derive.” α-terms serve to express or describe normative emotions, attitudes, and/or hypostatizations; β-terms serve to create them (in a socio-psychological sense). While with α-terms OFIDs are possible, β-terms can be used only to make socio-psychological hypotheses. Next, the author shows that Searle’s counts-as formula selects phenomena unrelated to Searle’s examples of constitutive rules. Finally, the author shows that—pace Searle—language alone does not make OFIDs possible.
Searle’s ought-from-is derivation; Evaluative vs. normative statements; Terms expressing or describing normative attitudes and/or hypostatizations vs. terms creating normative attitudes and/or hypostatizations; Counts-as formula; Constitutive rules Language and ought-from-is derivations
Settore IUS/20 - Filosofia del Diritto
Book Part (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2021.Fittipaldi Searle.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 58.4 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
58.4 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/835851
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact