Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    'May' does not entail 'can' in the way 'ought' does. — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The permissive reading of the normativity principle is compatible with the subject's inability to apply 'green' to every green object there is.

    'May' does not entail 'can' in the way 'ought' does.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Permission to apply a term does not require the ability to apply it in every app...The permissive reading of the normativity principle is compatible with the subje...

    Similar

    There is no principle that 'may' implies 'can' analogous to 'ought imp...87%Replacing 'ought' with 'may' in (ME1) means that an action being corre...82%If we ought to do something, then we must be able to do it (ought impl...81%One cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' (Hume's is-ought gap).79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: meaning-normativity
    View source passageHide passage
    In response it has been suggested that “ought” in (ME1) is replaced by a “may”. This allows the normativist to retain the biconditional and yet avoid the troubles caused by the principle that ought implies can: That an action is correct implies only that one may do it, not that one is obligated to do it, and there is no principle that ought implies can. If “green” is true of green objects only then \(S\) may apply “green” to an object if and only if it is green, and this is not in conflict with

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective