Ought-implies-can: Erasmus Luther and R.m. Hare

Sophia 29 (1):2-30 (1990)
Abstract
l. There is an antinomy in Hare's thought between Ought-Implies-Can and No-Indicatives-from-Imperatives. It cannot be resolved by drawing a distinction between implication and entailment. 2. Luther resolved this antinomy in the l6th century, but to understand his solution, we need to understand his problem. He thought the necessity of Divine foreknowledge removed contingency from human acts, thus making it impossible for sinners to do otherwise than sin. 3. Erasmus objected (on behalf of Free Will) that this violates Ought-Implies-Can which he supported with Hare-style ordinary language arguments. 4. Luther a) pointed out the antinomy and b) resolved it by undermining the prescriptivist arguments for Ought-Implies-Can. 5. We can reinforce Luther's argument with an example due to David Lewis. 6. Whatever its merits as a moral principle, Ought-Implies-Can is not a logical truth and should not be included in deontic logics. Most deontic logics, and maybe the discipline itself, should therefore be abandoned. 7. Could it be that Ought-Conversationally-Implies-Can? Yes - in some contexts. But a) even if these contexts are central to the evolution of Ought, the implication is not built into the semantics of the word; b) nor is the parallel implication built into the semantics of orders; and c) in some cases Ought conversationally implies Can, only because Ought-Implies-Can is a background moral belief. d) Points a) and b) suggest a criticism of prescriptivism - that Oughts do not entail imperatives but that the relation is one of conversational implicature. 8. If Ought-Implies-Can is treated as a moral principle, Erasmus' argument for Free Will can be revived (given his Christian assumptions). But it does not 'prove' Pelagianism as Luther supposed. A semi-Pelagian alternative is available.
Keywords R M.Hare  Matin Luther  Prescriptivism  Erasmus  Predestination  Free Will  Ought Implies Can  Pelagianism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF02782712
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive
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
On Referring.P. F. Strawson - 1950 - Mind 59 (235):320-344.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
I Ought, Therefore I Can.Peter B. M. Vranas - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 136 (2):167-216.
The Feasibility of Collectives' Actions.Holly Lawford-Smith - 2012 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (3):453-467.
Does 'Ought' Conversationally Implicate 'Can'?Bart Streumer - 2003 - European Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):219–228.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
The Lutheran Influence on Kant's Depraved Will.Dennis Vanden Auweele - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73 (2):117-134.
The Education of a Christian Prince.Desiderius Erasmus - 1997 - Cambridge University Press.
Bondage of the Will.Martin Luther - 2008 - Hendrickson Publishers.
Ought but Cannot.Wayne Martin - 2009 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109 (1pt2):103 - 128.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
388 ( #8,563 of 2,235,702 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
53 ( #6,921 of 2,235,702 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature