Two beliefs which serve to prevent teaching, defining, or progress in ethics and morality are: 1. That we cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." We supposedly cannot derive value statements from factual statements. 2. That we cannot define ethical terms in terms of non-ethical terms (naturalistic fallacy). But can we derive an "ought" from an "is?" Does it ever make sense to do so? Let's take a case as it may arise. It is cold outside. I know that a chill may bring on a cold and I wish to avoid catching cold. I then conclude "I ought to wear my coat." When I put on my coat, I derive an ought from an is.
Iowa Science Teachers Journal
© Copyright 1980 by the Iowa Academy of Science
"Ethics as a Science: Going from "Is" to "Ought","
Iowa Science Teachers Journal: Vol. 17
, Article 18.
Available at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/istj/vol17/iss3/18