That seems to be distinguishing, as the name suggests, between 'is' and 'ought', not between 'should' and 'ought'. Indeed, both the article itself, and its quo

That seems to be distinguishing, as the name suggests, between 'is' and 'ought', not between 'should' and 'ought'. Indeed, both the article itself, and its quotes from Hume, seem to use 'should' as nearly synonymous with 'ought'. (Even if I've got it wrong, ryanklee claimed that "[i]t's not common" to make that distinction, and pointing to the technical work of philosophers doesn't undermine the claim about common useage.)