Six Arguments Against ‘Ought Implies Can’

Southwest Philosophy Review 36 (1):45-54 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Opponents of ‘ought implies can’ (OIC) often proceed via cases or counterexamples; hypothetical situations are described in which one is unable to do what one intuitively ought to do. I proceed differently. I offer six arguments against OIC via general principles; no cases. Though each argument would suffice to refute OIC if sound, redundancy is always a failsafe.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

What Realism Implies and What it Does Not.Richard Boyd - 1989 - Dialectica 43 (1‐2):5-29.
Who is Afraid of Epistemology’s Regress Problem?Scott F. Aikin - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 126 (2):191-217.
Ought Does Not Imply Can.Paul Saka - 2000 - American Philosophical Quarterly 37 (2):93 - 105.
Does Kant Hold that Ought Implies Can?Shyam Ranganathan - 2010 - In J. Sharma & A. Raguramaraju (eds.), Grounding Morality. Routledge. pp. 60-87.
Epistemic Closure and Skepticism.John A. Barker & Fred Adams - 2010 - Logos and Episteme 1 (2):221-246.
Physicalism and downward causation in psychology and the special sciences.Theo C. Meyering - 2000 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 43 (2):181-202.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-04-23

Downloads
81 (#203,004)

6 months
9 (#295,075)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jonah Goldwater
College of William and Mary

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references