The Culpable Inability Problem for Synchronic and Diachronic ‘Ought Implies Can’
My paper has two aims: to underscore the importance of differently time-indexed ‘ought implies can’ principles, and to apply this to the culpable inability problem. Sometimes we make ourselves unable to do what we ought, but in those cases, we may still fail to do what we ought. This is taken to be...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Brill
2019
|
| In: |
Journal of moral philosophy
Year: 2019, Volume: 16, Issue: 1, Pages: 50-62 |
| Further subjects: | B
culpable inability
B remote obligation B diachronic B ought implies could have B synchronic B Ought implies can |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | My paper has two aims: to underscore the importance of differently time-indexed ‘ought implies can’ principles, and to apply this to the culpable inability problem. Sometimes we make ourselves unable to do what we ought, but in those cases, we may still fail to do what we ought. This is taken to be a serious problem for synchronic ‘ought implies can’ principles, with a simultaneous ‘ought’ and ‘can.’ Some take it to support diachronic ‘ought implies can,’ with a potentially temporally distinct ‘ought’ and ‘can.’ I will argue that this problem is not avoided by diachronic ‘ought implies can.’ |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1745-5243 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of moral philosophy
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/17455243-20180004 |