Ought-implies-can, the original position, and reflective equilibrium


Are John Rawls’s most noticeable methodological contributions, reflective equilibrium and the original position, consistent with each other? I draw attention to a worry that they stand in inconsistent relationships to the claim that ought implies can: it can only be the case that we ought to do something if we can do it.

Author's Profile

Terence Rajivan Edward
University of Manchester (PhD)


Added to PP

167 (#69,026)

6 months
89 (#40,563)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?