ought implies can.
Kant famously asserted that if you ought to F (e.g. keep a promise or help a friend) then you can F—i.e., that ought implies can. Like much of what Kant
said, he probably didn’t mean what he said. (Perhaps more charitably: Kant
didn’t mean what we—the uninitiated—think he means by what he said.) For this reason, I don’t wish to
discuss whatever Kant means by “ought implies can”. Instead, I wish to discuss
the principle that ought implies can.
Here are four putative counterexamples to such a principle; the first
three are counterexamples ex rationis exempla, the last is ex Scriptura.
Counterexample 1, 2, and 3
Suppose that Rex, without Jane’s consent, injects Jane with
heroin. Suppose further that Jane’s brain chemistry is such that she becomes an
addict and proceeds to act like one.
It seems to me that Jane ought not act like an addict. Yet, it seems that Jane cannot help but
behave like an addict. Therefore,
the principle that ought implies can is false.
Suppose that for years Ronald suffered abuse from his
parents. As a result, Ronald is
emotionally unavailable to his wife.
It seems to me that Ronald ought to be emotionally available to his
wife. Yet it also seems that
Ronald could not have been emotionally available to his wife. Therefore, the principle that ought
implies can is false.
Suppose that Michael suffers from social anxiety and, as a
result, he often lets his friends down. It seems to me that Michael ought not let
his friends down. But, it also
seems that, at least in some cases, Michael is constitutionally unable to not
let his friends down.
Therefore, the principle that ought implies can is false.
Counterexample 4
The Holy One commands us to “[b]e perfect…” (Mat.
5:48). Because we ought to do what
the Holy One commands us to do, it follows that we ought to be perfect. But, as the record of human history and
the heap of anyone’s own personal anecdotal experience should suggest, our
human condition is such that we are constitutionally incapable of being
perfect. Therefore, the principle that
ought implies can is false.
A Better Principle
Because Holy Writ and our own personal experience, in
addition to my first three counterexamples, show that the principle that ought
implies can is false, I wish to supplant it with a better one. Here's the Better Principle: if S ought to F,
and S will be morally responsible for her F-ing, then S can F.
posted by Derek at 2:57 PM
5 Comments:
Doesn’t “ought” already carry a sense of moral responsibility?
Why say of Jane (et al.) that she ought not act like an addict (because, duh, she can’t help it)?
Hi Louis!
Why say of Jane (et al.) that she ought not act like an addict (because, duh, she can’t help it)?
Because Jane et al. shouldn't be how they are. Or no?
Doesn’t “ought” already carry a sense of moral responsibility?
Morality yes. Responsibility no.
Or no?
"Because Jane et al. shouldn't be how they are. Or no?”
This isn’t obvious to me. Surely it would be better if they weren’t how they are. I am not convinced that they ought not be how they are, for the very reason that they truly cannot help being as they are, I take “ought” to connote moral responsibility, and I take “ought” to imply “can.” This last point I hold for precisely the reason that freedom is necessary for moral responsibility .
That said, I strongly suspect our differences on this matter are merely lexical.
Maybe our disagreement is verbal. Here’s an ulterior motive of mine. For solid biblical reasons, Christians are wont to insist that without God we cannot be good. They also are wont to insist that without believing in God we cannot be good. Usually non-believers find such doctrines repugnant. “Surely”, says the average everyday nominal WASP, “I don’t believe in God, but I’m a good person, so this idea that one cannot be good without believing in God is bananas.” Here’s my reply to such WASP’s.
Me: Right, you’re good in the sense that you’re a law-abiding citizen and so on, and this despite the fact that you don’t believe in God. But are you perfectly good?
WASP: No.
Me: Well, don’t you think that ought to be perfectly good?
WASP: I suppose.
Me: But don’t you that think despite your best efforts and on your own steam, you will never be perfect?
WASP: Hmm….
Me: Seriously? Go ahead and try your heart out. When you’re struck by the sober truth, come back and we’ll talk.
WASP: Alright alright, there’s no way I could be perfectly good.
Me: Well, don’t you think that God would have the ability to make you perfect even if you couldn’t be perfect on your own?
WASP: If God is, as you say, omnipotent, he could do anything, which, I suppose, would include making me perfect.
Me: Good. So now you agree with the Christian doctrine that you ought to be perfectly good but that without God you cannot.
Post a Comment
<< Home