Final answer:
Hume's is-ought problem suggests it's impossible to derive 'ought' from 'is' without additional value-laden premises. Moore's Open-Question Argument supports this by showing moral properties cannot be deduced from natural ones. Bridging the is-ought gap would require factual claims to be connected with moral principles, which are inherently subjective.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question inquires whether we can bridge the gap between what is (descriptive statements about the world) and what ought (prescriptive statements about how we should act) to create a proposition that contains both. This philosophical problem is known as the is-ought problem, famously described by David Hume. G. E. Moore's Open-Question Argument informs us that natural properties (like the chemical composition of water) cannot definitively answer questions about non-natural properties such as what is morally 'good' or 'right.' Hume's reasoning suggests that you cannot logically derive an 'ought' from an 'is' simply because they belong to fundamentally different categories of knowledge and discourse.
To bridge the 'is-ought' gap you need additional premises that can connect factual claims with moral principles, which are inherently normative. These premises often involve human values or ethical frameworks, which are subjective and vary among cultures and individuals. Simply put, any attempt to create a demi-is/demi-ought proposition would have to involve a complex interplay of fact and value that cannot be straightforwardly derived mathematically or scientifically.