“Ought” exceeds “can” ahead of time

Does ought imply can?

Most philosophers believe that a person can have an obligation only insofar as she is able to fulfil it, a principle generally referred to as "Ought Implies Can". Arguably, this principle reflects something basic about the ordinary concept of obligation. However, in a paper published recently in this journal, Wesley Buckwalter and John Turri presented evidence for the conclusion that ordinary p...

'ought', 'can', and Practical Reasons 1

As intuitive as OIC might seem, we should acknowledge that the arguments offered in its support often do not warrant the sort of confidence many of us have in the principle. For example, friends of OIC often say that the principle is needed to explain certain linguistic behaviors. 3 Suppose Smith sees Jones sitting in a chair and Jones tells Smith that he has just been robbed. 'You ought to cal...

‘Ought’ implies ‘can’ and the principle of alternate possibilities

In his paper ‘What we are morally responsible for’,1 Harry Frankfurt claims, in passing, that while the ‘Frankfurt Counterexamples’2 are counterexamples to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP: An agent is morally blameworthy3 for what she has done only if she could have done otherwise), they are not counterexamples to the famous Kantian maxim that ‘Ought’ implies ‘Can’. In an Analysis...

Does ‘Ought’ Imply ‘Can’? And Did Kant Think It Does?

Internal Reasons and the Ought-implies-can Principle1

The task of this essay is to use the ought-implies-can principle (OIC) to clarify and defend Bernard Williams’ claim that all reasons are internal. On the interpretation offered here, the internalism/externalism controversy initiated by Williams is about the indexicality of normative practical reasons. The central question is this: Are all of our reasons anchored to our current beliefs and desi...