Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

PhilPapersPhilPeoplePhilArchivePhilEventsPhilJobs
Switch to: References

Citations of:

Praise, blame, and the ought implies can principle

Philosophia 28 (1-4):425-436 (2001)

Add citations

You mustlogin to add citations.
  1. I Ought, Therefore I Can.Peter B. M. Vranas -2007 -Philosophical Studies 136 (2):167-216.
    I defend the following version of the ought-implies-can principle: (OIC) by virtue of conceptual necessity, an agent at a given time has an (objective, pro tanto) obligation to do only what the agent at that time has the ability and opportunity to do. In short, obligations correspond to ability plus opportunity. My argument has three premises: (1) obligations correspond to reasons for action; (2) reasons for action correspond to potential actions; (3) potential actions correspond to ability plus opportunity. In the (...) bulk of the paper I address six objections to OIC: three objections based on putative counterexamples, and three objections based on arguments to the effect that OIC conflicts with the is/ought thesis, the possibility of hard determinism, and the denial of the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. (shrink)
    Direct download(5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   141 citations  
  • Allies in tension: Identifying and bridging the rift between r2p and just war.Henrik Friberg-Fernros -2011 -Journal of Military Ethics 10 (3):160-173.
    Abstract It has become almost commonplace to regard the concepts of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Just War as not only compatible but rather closely connected. Contrary to this position I argue here that some Just War criteria are in significant tension with R2P. This tension results from the fact that Just War only makes war permitted while R2P prescribes an obligation. But R2P and Just War not only are in significant tension, but also suffer from inverted weaknesses: R2P is (...) too demanding while Just War is not demanding enough. Granting that R2P implies a duty to protect, I argue that such a duty is too demanding since it conflicts with the principle of ?ought implies can?, whereas Just War is arguably not far-reaching enough as ?duties-talk? does not fit into its structure. I finish by proposing an interpretation of R2P and Just War which not only eliminates the tension but also compensates for these weaknesses. (shrink)
    Direct download(3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Moral Dilemmas and Offence.Gregory Mellema -2005 -Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (3):291-298.
    In 1963 Roderick Chisholm proposed a category of acts called “offences” to capture what he called acts of “permissive ill-doing.” Chisholm’s proposal has proven to be controversial. Here I propose that some progress can be made in validating acts of offence by focusing upon moral dilemmas. Given the problems which have been alleged to beset moral dilemmas, this may initially seem like a puzzling strategy. However, I will call attention to a type of moral dilemma unlike what is standardly discussed (...) in the literature and attempt to show that those who acknowledge that such dilemmas are possible are likewise obliged to acknowledge that acts of offence are possible. My suggestion, then, is that, since the former are plausible to acknowledge, so are the latter. (shrink)
    Direct download(4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    • Home |New books and articles |Bibliographies |Philosophy journals |About PhilPapers |API |Contact us |Code of conduct

    CDPPhiosophy Documentation Center
    PhilPapers logo byAndrea Andrews andMeghan Driscoll.
    This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see ourterms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).

    Use of this site is subject toterms & conditions.
    All rights reserved byThe PhilPapers Foundation

    Server: philpapers-web-5b9ff6f457-t4pt2 uwo
    [8]ページ先頭
    ©2009-2025 Movatter.jp