Staddon, JER2011-03-252011-03-252009https://hdl.handle.net/10161/3391Professor Hocutt and I agree that David Hume first pointed out that “ought”—what should be done—cannot be derived from “is”—what is the case. Hocutt goes on to claim that “ought,” in fact, derives from factual observation of “what we care about,” which amounts to saying “you should do what you want to do.” This seems to me unsatisfactory as moral philosophy.Hume, Moore, naturalistic fallacy, evolution, Fodor, moralJournal article