|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
What is meant by the phrase ‘Ought implies can’?
In literal meaning, ‘ought’ and ‘can’ have similar meanings with distinct difference. ‘Ought’ means ‘must’, ‘should’, ‘is obliged to do (something)’… It means that someone is morally expected, morally obliged to do something. ... It carries a heavy deontological element- for example when we are said to ‘ought’ to help those who are suffering from famine, it is our duty to assist them. ...
However, if ‘ought’ carries duty element from external forces like violence and not morality, when someone makes a moral action that he ought to do under violence, he is not morally responsible for his actions. ...
Bringing them together and comparing them, ‘ought’ and ‘can’ means almost the same thing, apart from the additional element in ‘ought’- duty. ... The statement of Immanuel Kant says that ‘Ought’ implies ‘can’. ... ‘Ought’ implies ‘can’ may mean that in morality (to be morally right), we ought to behave in someway, but practically in real life we are able to make other decisions than being morally right. ‘Ought’ is included in morality; ‘can’ is included in a larger area- life. ...
(b) As ‘ought’ can literally mean ‘should’, it leads us to another discussion.
Approximate Word count = 983
Approximate Pages = 3.9
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|