Does ought imply can?

[fakename]

that is, if there is a moral rule, does the existence of that rule imply that it can be done?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

I think that perhaps not since there’s a rule that says, “whatever is impossible is not obligatory”. But that doesn’t say that the moral rule is non-existent just that it doesn’t oblige one in that particular case.

 

[James1215]

I think ought relies on can, otherwise it’s meaningless in a practical sense. I ought to do something which no one can possibly do…?

 

[James1215]

How ought I to do it?

 

[fakename]

I think ought relies on can, otherwise it’s meaningless in a practical sense. I ought to do something which no one can possibly do…?

The problem there is that, if we assume that morality is something objective, then if everyone happens to be impossibly blind to morality, then that doesn’t affect their moral obligations, because it exists beyond their perceptions, but it rather affects their ability to fulfill them.

So in a sense, these people ought to do things that no one can possibly do.

 

[James1215]

Are you saying you have to be Catholic to be able to fulfil our obligations? This seems like a problem with absolute morality, which is not something I subscribe to.

Whatever one might have to be or think to act morally, these are all things we can do. If something is truly not possible to do, then whether we should do it is irrelevant.

But I guess some things are worth striving towards because of the side effects along the way, and some things we cannot do are very idealistic. If we did a lesser version of the impossible thing, it may be very good.

 

[DPMartin]

Are you saying you have to be Catholic to be able to fulfil our obligations? This seems like a problem with absolute morality, which is not something I subscribe to.

Whatever one might have to be or think to act morally, these are all things we can do. If something is truly not possible to do, then whether we should do it is irrelevant.

But I guess some things are worth striving towards because of the side effects along the way, and some things we cannot do are very idealistic. If we did a lesser version of the impossible thing, it may be very good.

James

I wouldn’t say that it necessarily involves morals per say. One could say that morals are relative, but ethics are universal.

If one is in agreement to live on a land lord’s property, is he obligated to make payment? Can he make payment? And if he can, should he make payment? And if it is not in his hand to make payment when payment is do, then what? And if he doesn’t make payment, no matter if he can or not. Is he under judgement of the landlord?

Also, if he is not in agreement with the landlord, then he is not obligated to the landlord, but he doesn’t belong on the landlord’s property. No matter if he does, or doesn’t have some place else to live.

 

[tonyrey]

Are you saying you have to be Catholic to be able to fulfil our obligations? This seems like a problem with absolute morality, which is not something I subscribe to.

Whatever one might have to be or think to act morally, these are all things we can do. If something is truly not possible to do, then whether we should do it is irrelevant.

But I guess some things are worth striving towards because of the side effects along the way, and some things we cannot do are very idealistic. If we did a lesser version of the impossible thing, it may be very good.

You are right. Robert Browning wrote in one of his poems:

“A man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a heaven for?”

Even if you don’t believe in heaven you don’t know what you can do until try. If you don’t aim high you will finish low!

 

[James1215]

I have two possible solutions to this scenario:

‘If one is in agreement to live on a land lord’s property, is he obligated to make payment? Can he make payment? And if he can, should he make payment? And if it is not in his hand to make payment when payment is do, then what? And if he doesn’t make payment, no matter if he can or not. Is he under judgement of the landlord?’

If the person had a choice about taking on the contract, he should only have accepted it if he was secure in his ability to pay - the possible and the right thing to do is avoid a commitment he is likely to break in future.

Or, if he cannot pay for reasons beyond his control/foresight, the landlord can only accept this while the tenant strives to gain an income. Bad luck for the tenant - they may get kicked out - in recognition of the fact that ‘ought’ is irrelevant when it cannot be done. He certainly ought to pay if he could, and the original obligation does not go away.So I think ought still depends upon can.

 

[fhansen]

that is, if there is a moral rule, does the existence of that rule imply that it can be done?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

I think that perhaps not since there’s a rule that says, “whatever is impossible is not obligatory”. But that doesn’t say that the moral rule is non-existent just that it doesn’t oblige one in that particular case.

depends on the rules. I think the ten commandments, for example, are rules that can be done.

 

[John21652]

that is, if there is a moral rule, does the existence of that rule imply that it can be done?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

I think that perhaps not since there’s a rule that says, “whatever is impossible is not obligatory”. But that doesn’t say that the moral rule is non-existent just that it doesn’t oblige one in that particular case.

Ought implies choice.
The contrary is Ought not.
One cannot choose to do what cannot be done.

 

[tonyrey]

I have two possible solutions to this scenario:

‘If one is in agreement to live on a land lord’s property, is he obligated to make payment? Can he make payment? And if he can, should he make payment? And if it is not in his hand to make payment when payment is do, then what? And if he doesn’t make payment, no matter if he can or not. Is he under judgement of the landlord?’

If the person had a choice about taking on the contract, he should only have accepted it if he was secure in his ability to pay - the possible and the right thing to do is avoid a commitment he is likely to break in future.

Or, if he cannot pay for reasons beyond his control/foresight, the landlord can only accept this while the tenant strives to gain an income. Bad luck for the tenant - they may get kicked out - in recognition of the fact that ‘ought’ is irrelevant when it cannot be done. He certainly ought to pay if he could, and the original obligation does not go away.So I think ought still depends upon can.

Sometimes people cannot see the wood for the trees. If “ought” doesn’t imply “can” we should start blaming our computers when they give trouble! The next question is how we should punish them…

 

[DPMartin]

I have two possible solutions to this scenario:

‘If one is in agreement to live on a land lord’s property, is he obligated to make payment? Can he make payment? And if he can, should he make payment? And if it is not in his hand to make payment when payment is do, then what? And if he doesn’t make payment, no matter if he can or not. Is he under judgement of the landlord?’

If the person had a choice about taking on the contract, he should only have accepted it if he was secure in his ability to pay - the possible and the right thing to do is avoid a commitment he is likely to break in future.

Or, if he cannot pay for reasons beyond his control/foresight, the landlord can only accept this while the tenant strives to gain an income. Bad luck for the tenant - they may get kicked out - in recognition of the fact that ‘ought’ is irrelevant when it cannot be done. He certainly ought to pay if he could, and the original obligation does not go away.So I think ought still depends upon can.

James
thanks for the reply

It seems then, all a man can or ought to promise or agree to is (in this case), if he can he will. For the man doesn’t know what tomorrow will bring. Therefore the “ought” and “can” are one, and the man is not found unethical no matter the circumstances he may be in. The can is the reality of capability and ought is judgement. If the two are different then the man is in error. If the two are the same in the man, then the man is not in error no matter the out come.

 

[James1215]

Ah I know what you mean. But think of the power of having ought and can aligned: it would mean doing all we could do for our neighbours, loving everyone, ending war, ending crime, etc etc.

We fail when we do not do what we can. I think John has hit it on the head - ought not to do what we cannot do anyway? That would be adding no meaning

 

[James1215]

We do not fail when we cannot do anything

 

[fhansen]

We do not fail when we cannot do anything

Catholic doctrine maintains that man can’t do what he ought-because he loses any kind of permanent self-control if he’s outside the purview of God, a state we’re said to all be born into. This is why the greatest commandment is to love God, another “ought” that we need His help to understand-and to obey.

 

[James1215]

But ultimately we can still do it

 

[Ender]

that is, if there is a moral rule, does the existence of that rule imply that it can be done?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

I think that perhaps not since there’s a rule that says, “whatever is impossible is not obligatory”. But that doesn’t say that the moral rule is non-existent just that it doesn’t oblige one in that particular case.

This is my understanding also. A more complete explanation was given by JPII in Veritatis Splendor (#52).

*Positive precepts such as these, which order us to perform certain actions … are universally binding… Negative precepts are [also] universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance … without exception. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all. … **Only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances *… it is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil.

Ender

 

[fhansen]

But ultimately we can still do it

Yep

 

[DPMartin]

Ah I know what you mean. But think of the power of having ought and can aligned: it would mean doing all we could do for our neighbours, loving everyone, ending war, ending crime, etc etc.

We fail when we do not do what we can. I think John has hit it on the head - ought not to do what we cannot do anyway? That would be adding no meaning

James

Yes but is it wise to require of the world to do what it “ought” in the context of “can”? For if one’s own expectations are in another surly he shall be disappointed therein.

If one’s own view of “ought” and “can” is different from the other. Then could it be that one’s view of “ought” and “can” is according to what is in his own heart, that he believes is true? Hence the concept of “morality is relative”. But ethics is to agree in the Truth of the matter, no matter what one’s own views may be. Which only the individual can do, no matter the out come in the world.

For example: for what ever reasons in a criminal minds heart he ought to rob the bank and will when he sees that he can. Hence morality seems to be relative. But if the same agrees that he ought not and will not even though he can, is ethical. For he agrees to the Truth that robbery is wrong no matter what is in his heart that would justify otherwise within himself.

I apologize if this seems a little off subject.

 

[James1215]

DPmartin,

No it is entirely on-topic, thanks for the reply!

I’m not sure I was clear – I think that we can all do a tremendous amount, and so if we did all we could, ‘miraculous’ change would happen, including world peace. We fail when we don’t do what we can, as opposed to failing because what we ought to do is impossible. I still don’t think that is meaningful.

Yes there is scope for pondering what is possible, but having different opinions of the extent of human capacity does not mean that these disagreements cannot be resolved. We start from standpoints relative to ourself, but this is not so terrifying. Could anyone strongly feel that they ought to rob a bank? Or mug someone? Perhaps in the context of gang membership and group loyalty, but group loyalty is not wrong per se, rather limiting one’s group to the gang is wrong because it hurts other people whom one disregards outside the gang. That might be an ‘objective’ way of looking at things which acknowledges relative perspectives.

Believing in God does not stop people doing horrendous things, but group pressure and teaching is very powerful. I think all morality ultimately deals with how other people are impacted by your actions, and this is not an easy thing to get quick answers out of, but does not invalidate relative morality.

As I am an atheist, we’re quite likely to disagree on morality fixed by the divine