Does ought imply can?

[Betterave]

‘Ought’ and ‘can’ can both be applied to particular situations or to make universal statements. If we take the ‘ought’ of a moral rule (a universal statement), then the ‘can’ that it seems to imply must also be understood universally, i.e., it may not apply to a particular situation but it is still true universally.

Perhaps we could express this by saying that ‘ought’ doesn’t imply ‘can’ absolutely, but ‘ought’ does always imply ‘ought to be able.’ Putting it this way emphasizes that the moral ‘ought’ refers to human morality, morality that really does apply to humans and in a certain sense is truly constitutive of the humanity of humans.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.

Moral truth is not contingent upon ability or capacity. It is wrong to rape a women, but if a man has gone insane than he has lost his ability to obey moral law. This effects his culpability, for if he has no freedom he cannot be judged according to any standard based upon freedom. However, it is still the case that we ought not to rape women. A lack of freedom doesn’t change moral truth as it is applied to us, it just means that there is a possibility that some times we do not deserve to be punished for our actions because cases can arise where we are not responsible for those actions. But we are still obliged to act morally insofar as our freedom is concerned. Moral law never stops being true, however it is applied only to those who have the freedom to act on it.

 

[DPMartin]

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

James

thanks for the reply

Well I am not necessarily disagreeing to the possibility of morality is relative, I am more pressed to understand that ethics is to agree to the Truth and the Truth to me is divine. Technically the word moral is not found in the Bible. Therefore morals can be relative to the group as you say, or the individual’s heart, for whatever reasons he may justify within himself. And will act accordingly when he can.

To me it is the loving-kindness in righteousness and judgement executed in the earth that is the true “Moral” (if there has to be one). The original definition of loving-kindness in the English language is God’s love for His creatures. Hence living things. And without Life there is no love for life and living things. Which is strange in a world full of violence. I mean even for one’s own flesh to remain sustained, violence to another living thing must come to pass.

It is this Love for Life that is the strength of living, not a weakness. If morals are relative, then what is relative to the Creator? Certainly that would have to be the Truth, and the ethical creature will agree to the Truth of His Creator.

A creature must have Peace with his Creator, that is of his Creator in order to bring the same Peace into the world.