Theories are private property, but truth is common stock. ~Charles Caleb Colton

As originally stated by David Hume, numerous journalists construct suppositions about what “ought” to be derived from societal statements about what has been proven to be absolutely true, or what “is”. There seems to be a significant discrepancy between descriptive claims (those declaring what “is”) and prescriptive claims (those stating what “ought” to be). In his argument, Hume urges all writers to be on the lookout for these types of suppositions, making sure that if there is no valid reasoning behind why the “ought” claims allegedly derive from the “is” claims, to be careful utilizing such “loaded terms”. But just how is one supposed to develop an “ought” from an “is”? With one’s understanding of how the world is, is it even feasible for a person to truly know how the world ought to be? It is Hume’s belief (as well as mine) that such a derivation is absolutely impossible.

At present, humanity’s natural “hard-wiring” is being studied in the area of evolutionary psychology and, with any luck, as society expands its knowledge, redesigning the “ought to be” and “what is” claims built into our culture and minds will become much more possible and “user-friendly” to humans, animals, and the environment. As the well-known primatologist Frans De Waal states, “In the words of Edward Wilson, biology holds us “on a leash” and will let us stray only so far from who we are. We can design our life any way we want, but whether we will thrive depends on how well the life firs human predisposition.”

To summarize everything, going directly from an “is” claim to an “ought” claim is just utterly impracticable for, although we can survive based on what “is”, we can never be truly satisfied without our predispositions of what “ought to be”.