Canadian Journal of Philosophy 3 (3):373 - 379 (1974)

Authors
Alison Jaggar
University of Colorado, Boulder
Abstract
In this paper, I want to discuss the recent attempts by Professor John R. Searle to cast doubt on the traditional empiricist distinction between fact and value. Searle's first attack on this distinction was made in 1964 in his now classic article, “How to derive ‘ought’ from ‘is’.” In that paper, he presented what he claimed to be a counter-example to the thesis that statements of fact may not entail statements of value. Searle's argument aroused much controversy and inspired many attempted refutations, but Searle apparently found none of these convincing, for a few years later he published a revised version of his paper as the last chapter of his book, Speech Acts. The new version includes his replies to many of the objections which had been made to his thesis up to that time. It also includes, in the main body of the book, a theory of language which is supposed to provide the theoretical underpinning explaining why his original paper presents a genuine counter-example to the position he is attacking. It is the Speech Acts version of Searle's thesis which I want to consider here.
Keywords Illocutionary force  Speech acts  Illocutionary acts  Naturalistic fallacy  Searle
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/00455091.1974.10716890
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,587
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.William P. Alston - 1970 - Philosophical Quarterly 20 (79):172-179.
How to Derive "Ought" From "Is".John R. Searle - 1964 - Philosophical Review 73 (1):43-58.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

How to Prove Hume’s Law.Gillian Russell - forthcoming - Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-30.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-05-29

Total views
57 ( #191,196 of 2,461,934 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #448,599 of 2,461,934 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes