Bradley, D. (2024) Ought-Implies-Can in Context. Ergo, 11. 28. pp. 747-768. ISSN 2330-4014
Abstract
If you ought to do something, does it follow that you are able to do it? The Kantian thesis that ought-implies-can seems intuitive and is widely accepted. Nevertheless, there are several powerful purported counterexamples. In this paper I will apply an independently motivated contextualism about ‘ought’ to make sense of the intuitions on both sides of the argument. Contextualism explains why ought-implies-can seems compelling despite being false in many contexts. The result will be that philosophers cannot in general appeal to ought-implies-can in their arguments.
Metadata
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Authors/Creators: |
|
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: | This item is protected by copyright. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (CC BY-NC-ND). |
Dates: |
|
Institution: | The University of Leeds |
Academic Units: | The University of Leeds > Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Cultures (Leeds) > School of Philosophy, Religion and History of Science (Leeds) |
Funding Information: | Funder Grant number John Templeton Foundation (US) ID# 62603 |
Depositing User: | Symplectic Publications |
Date Deposited: | 31 Aug 2023 10:28 |
Last Modified: | 05 Nov 2024 15:56 |
Status: | Published |
Publisher: | Michigan Publishing |
Identification Number: | 10.3998/ergo.6782 |
Open Archives Initiative ID (OAI ID): | oai:eprints.whiterose.ac.uk:202863 |