Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The 'ought implies can' principle entails only that the highest good must be possible, not that any particular agent must believe it is achievable.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Practical normativity requires agents to guide their actions; moral demands disconnected from perceived possibility are motivationally inert.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The principle's purpose is to protect agents from impossible demands; ignoring subjective impossibility defeats this protective function entirely.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
An agent cannot rationally 'ought' to pursue what they cannot even conceive as achievable, making the distinction between objective and believed possibility false.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral principles must apply universally; not all agents have equal capacities, so obligations cannot depend on individual beliefs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
'Ought' prescribes what is objectively required, while 'can' constrains only what is metaphysically possible, not psychologically apparent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If duties required individual belief in achievability, moral systems would collapse into relativism based on subjective confidence levels.
?
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.