Utilitas

Symposium on ‘Ought’ and ‘Can’

Response to Carlson and Qizilbash

Frances Howard-Snydera1

a1 Western Washington University, franhs@henson.cc.wwu.edu

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.