- "It seems to me that this theory does derive an 'ought' from an 'is,'
and justifiably so.. though not in the way you imagine.
The theory does, as you say, ground moral values in God's unchanging nature.
God is the paradigm of goodness."
"But that is not to say that 'because God is a certain way we ought to behave in certain ways.
No, our moral obligations and prohibitions arise as a result of God's command to us.
God's nature serves to establish values - goodness and badness - while God's command establish moral duties -- what we ought or ought not to do"
"Some might demand, ;Why are we obligated to do something just because it is commanded by God?
The answer to that question comes, I think, by reflecting on the nature of moral duty.
Duty arises in response to an imperative from a competent authority"
How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle
i.e. the derivation is based on the concept of a Framework and System of Knowledge and its related constitutional facts and the implied ought
within in this case, the theological framework.
While Searle's argument is justified from empirical facts,
the limitation with the theological framework is its foundation and competent authority is grounded on something that is non-existent, i.e. the illusory God which is impossible to exists as real within reality.
God is an Impossible to Exists as Real