Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Every genuine moral obligation entails the possibility of fulfillment, since 'ought' implies 'can' (Kant's principle).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Moral obligations can be collective or long-term; even if I individually cannot succeed now, fulfillment through others or future effort may be possible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Impossibility is context-dependent and epistemically fragile; what seems impossible may become possible with effort, so the principle proves too much.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
We do assign genuine obligations regarding difficult character development (honesty, compassion) whose fulfillment remains uncertain and partial.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral obligations serve to guide action; obligating the impossible treats morality as mere fantasy rather than practical guidance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
We rationally exempt people from obligations they cannot fulfill (e.g., disabled individuals), suggesting possibility is a conceptual requirement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Blaming someone for failing an impossible obligation is incoherent—blame presupposes the agent could have done otherwise.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42