Ought Implies Can
December 5, 2022
Ought implies can is one of the fundamental aspects of Ethics. Originally ascribed to Emmanuel Kant (founder of Kantianism) this formula holds that an agent has a moral obligation to an action only if he or she can logically accomplish it. I only ought to volunteer because it is certainly within my ability to do so. This formula also explains why I have no moral obligation to stop a war or end world hunger. These issues are too large for me to reasonably archive, even if they are commendable goals. Some argue, however, that this formula also justifies inaction where taking action is the only morally right choice. For example, climate change. No one person can reasonably alter the course of global warming. Choosing to bike to school today instead of driving will not prevent an ice cap from melting. Likewise, avoiding the use of a straw at Starbucks today is not going to save the sea turtle population. So, do I have an obligation to reduce my environmental impact? Some would argue no, if you have no potential to make an impact then why try? The opposition to this is that we ought to do what we can, even if what we can do seems insignificant. To universalize an action is to imagine if everyone performs that action. If everyone ignored their environmental obligation to reduce their impact, we certainly would be worse off than if everyone chose to make an effort.
If we accept this another issue arises. We often favor convenience over morality, when morality should imply necessity. I have the ability to walk to tennis today, but I will not, I will instead drive the mile and a half. Another example is Peter Singer’s “Singer Solution to World Poverty.” In this essay, he says, beyond reasonable doubt, it would cause more good in the world if we were to donate all but the necessities to poor struggling nations. Certainly, the ability to save a child's life in Africa far outweighs the pleasure of our luxuries and tangible goods we insist on having. And it is also certainly something we CAN do. In fact, Singer provides websites in which you can donate to save a child's life at the bottom of his essay. But, we do not do this. It is an incredibly demanding philosophical outlook. We have two options. We can accept that we are fundamentally acting immorally, or we can argue that an obligation that is too demanding of me should no longer be an obligation. This is one of the largest struggles of ethical theory.