Stern, R. (2004) Does ‘Ought’ Imply ‘Can’? And Did Kant Think It Does? Utilitas, 16 (1). pp. 42-61. ISSN 0953-8208
Full text available as:![[img]](http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/text.png)
|
Text
sternr1.pdf Download (111Kb) |
Abstract
The aim of this article is twofold. First, it is argued that while the principle of ‘ought implies can’ is certainly plausible in some form, it is tempting to misconstrue it, and that this has happened in the way it has been taken up in some of the current literature. Second, Kant’s understanding of the principle is considered. Here it is argued that these problematic conceptions put the principle to work in a way that Kant does not, so that there is an important divergence here which can easily be overlooked.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: | © 2004 Cambridge University Press. Reprinted with permission. |
| Academic Units: | The University of Sheffield > Faculty of Arts and Humanities (Sheffield) > Department of Philosophy (Sheffield) |
| Depositing User: | Repository Officer |
| Date Deposited: | 23 Feb 2005 |
| Last Modified: | 08 Feb 2013 16:47 |
| Status: | Published |
| Refereed: | Yes |
| Identification Number: | 10.1017/S0953820803001055 |
| URI: | http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/298 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
