...ought from an is it is, I think, clear where Searle's mistake is to be found. He there claims that 3. Jones placed himself under (undertook) an obligation to pay Smith five dollars. follows "straight off" from 2. Jones promised to pay Smith five dollars. (SA 177/178). if one takes...

...demonstrates this possibility to derive an "ought" from an "is" by means of the example of a promise: "1. Jones uttered the words 'I hereby promise to pay...Smith five dollars. 5. Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars."7 But the passage from the fact of the promise in (1) and (2) to the obligation of this particular...

...words "I hereby promise to pay you, Smith, five dollars". Jones promised to pay Smith five dollars. Jones placed himself under (undertook) an obligation to pay Smith five dollars. Jones is under an obligation to pay Smith five dollars. Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars. Searle's...

...derivation of an 'ought' from an 'is'. This derivation was captured in the following sequence of statements: 1 Jones uttered the words 'I hereby promise to pay...is under an obligation to pay Smith five dollars. Searle was quick to concede that not each of these statements strictly entailed its successor. But...

...All promises are acts of placing oneself under (undertaking] an obligation to do the thing promised. [3| Jones placed himself under (undertook] an obligation to pay Smith five dollars. |3a] Ceteris parabis clause - Other things are equal. |3b| All those who place themselves under an...

...of placing oneself under (undertaking) an obligation to do the thing promised. 106 T. Yamada (iii) Jones placed himself under (undertook) an obligation to pay Smith five dollars. (iiia) All those who place themselves under an obligation are (at the time when they so place themselves)...