Obviously there is truth to this. Just because I am a blogger doesn't mean I ought to be one.
But some internet denizens have seized upon the problem and cite it with prodigality.
There are many responses to them, like the explanation of duty or teleological goal as inherent to existence. For such critics, it seems the is-ought makes a hard philosophical distinction out of a mere verbal distinction.
I am no longer in a position to judge most of these arguments, if I ever was. Yet I do appreciate a comedic rebuttal like that put forward by Deogolwulf.
In a long comment thread, he dismisses the purported problem as "a poor figment of an eighteenth-century philosopher's mind."
I. There is an is-ought gap.
II. A rational animal ought to accept what is.
III. I am a rational animal.
IV. I ought to accept that there is an is-ought gap.
V. Oh dear.
Because the is-ought problem is fundamentally an ethical one, it cannot be kept on the logical plane alone. By considering the personal obligation (and telos) of a rational creature, Deogowulf brings philosophy away from the mind games of the blackboard and the e-mail signature and back into life where it belongs.