Does 'ought' conversationally implicate 'can'?

European Journal of Philosophy

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 219-228

  Streumer, Bart ^a  

^a FITZWILLIAM COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846841654     PISSN: 09668373     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1468-0378.00184     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Forrester, James (1989), Why You Should: The Pragmatics of Deontic Speech. Hanover: University Press of New England.
2. Goldman, Holly S. (1976), 'Dated Rightness and Moral Imperfection', Philosophical Review, 85: 449-87.
3. Grice, H.P. (1961), 'The Causal Theory of Perception', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, suppl. vol. 35: 121-52.
4. Grice, H.P. (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Humberstone, I.L. (1971), 'Two Sorts of "Ought"', Analysis, 32: 8-14.
6. Pigden, Charles (1990), 'Ought-implies-can: Erasmus Luther and R. M. Hare', Sophia, 29: 2-30.
7. Saka, Paul (2000), 'Ought Does Not Imply Can', American Philosophical Quarterly, 37: 93-105.
8. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (1984), '"Ought" Conversationally Implies "Can"', Philosophical Review, 93: 249-61.
9. - (1985), '"Ought to Have" and "Could Have'", Analysis, 43: 44-48.
10. - (1988), Moral Dilemmas. Oxford: Blackwell.
11. Thomason, Richmond H. (1981), 'Deontic Logic and the Role of Freedom in Moral Deliberation', in Risto Hilpinen (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel.
12. Zimmerman, Michael (1996), The Concept of Moral Obligation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.