Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:51:47.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2004

ROBERT STERN
ROBERT STERN
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Utilitas , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 42 - 61
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)