"cannot" implies "not ought"

Philosophical Studies

Volumn 130, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 233-246

  Howard Snyder, Frances ^a  

^a WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748870782     PISSN: 00318116     EISSN: 15730883     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11098-004-4511-z     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Brouwer, F.E. (1969): 'A Difficulty with 'Ought implies Can', Southern Journal of Philosophy 7, Spring 45-50.
2. Chisholm, R. (1968): 'Supererogation and Offence,' in J.J. Thomson and G. Dworkin (eds.), Ethics, New York: Harper and Row.
3. Copp, D. (1997): 'Defending the Principle of Alternate Possibilities: Blameworthiness and Moral Responsibility' Nous 31, 441-456.
4. Feldman, F. (1986): Doing the Best We Can, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
5. Fischer, J.M. 'Ought-implies-can', Causal Determinism and Moral Responsibility,' Analysis 63.3, 244-250.
6. Howard-Snyder, F. (1996) "A New Argument for Consequentialism? A Reply to Sinnott Armstrong" Analysis.
7. Howard-Snyder, F. (1997) "The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism," Utilitas.
8. Humberstone, I.L. (1972): 'Two Sorts of 'Oughts', Analysis 8-11.
9. Kekes, J. (1984): '"Ought implies Can' and two Kinds of Morality,' The Philosophical Quarterly 34, 459-467.
10. Moore, G.E. (1992): Philosophical Studies, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
11. Rescher, N. (1987): Ethical Idealism, Berkeley: University of California Press.
12. Ross, W.D. (1930): The Right and the Good, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
13. Ryan, S. (2003): 'Doxastic Compatibilism and the Ethics of Belief', Philosophical Studies.
14. Saka, P. 'Ought does not Imply Can', American Philosophical Quarterly 37, 93-105.
15. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (1984): 'Ought' Conversationally Implies 'Can', Philosophical Review 93(2), 249-261.
16. Sinnott Armstrong, W. 'An Argument for Consequentialism,' in J. Tomberlin, (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives 6: Ethics, Atascadero, California: Ridgeview Publishing Company.
17. Stern, R. 'Does 'Ought' Imply 'Can' and did Kant think it does?' Utilitas, forthcoming.
18. Stocker, M. 'Ought' and 'Can', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 49, 303-316.
19. Widerker, D. 'Frankfurt on 'Ought' Implies 'Can' and Alternative Possibilities', Analysis 51, 222-224.
20. Zimmerman, M. (1996): The Concept of Moral Obligation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.