Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Andrić, Vuko 2016. Is Objective Consequentialism Compatible with the Principle that “Ought” Implies “Can”?. Philosophia, Vol. 44, Issue. 1, p. 63.


    Moore, Eric 2007. Objective consequentialism, right actions, and good people. Philosophical Studies, Vol. 133, Issue. 1, p. 83.


    Miller, Dale E. 2003. Actual-Consequence Act Utilitarianism and the Best Possible Humans. Ratio, Vol. 16, Issue. 1, p. 49.


    ×

Response to Carlson and Qizilbash

  • Frances Howard-Snyder (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0953820800002302
  • Published online: 01 January 2009
Abstract

In ‘The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism’ I argued against objective consequentialism on the grounds that it requires us to do what we cannot do and hence violates the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’. Erik Carlson and Mozaffar Qizilbash have raised objections to my arguments, chiefly by distinguishing different senses of ‘can’ and ‘ought’. I here attempt to rebut those challenges.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Utilitas
  • ISSN: 0953-8208
  • EISSN: 1741-6183
  • URL: /core/journals/utilitas
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×