Does 'ought' conversationally implicate 'can'?

European Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):219–228 (2003)
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argues that 'ought' does not entail 'can', but instead conversationally implicates it. I argue that Sinnott-Armstrong is actually committed to a hybrid view about the relation between 'ought' and 'can'. I then give a tensed formulation of the view that 'ought' entails 'can' that deals with Sinnott-Armstrong's argument and that is more unified than Sinnott-Armstrong's view.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/1468-0378.00184
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,707
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Paul Saka (2000). Ought Does Not Imply Can. American Philosophical Quarterly 37 (2):93 - 105.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Neil Levy (2007). Doxastic Responsibility. Synthese 155 (1):127 - 155.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

86 ( #38,845 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

9 ( #74,830 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.