"Ought Implies Can,” Framing Effects, and "Empirical Refutations"

Philosophia 46 (1):165-182 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
This paper aims to contribute to the current debate about the status of the “Ought Implies Can” principle and the growing body of empirical evidence that undermines it. We report the results of an experimental study which show that people judge that agents ought to perform an action even when they also judge that those agents cannot do it and that such “ought” judgments exhibit an actor-observer effect. Because of this actor-observer effect on “ought” judgments and the Duhem-Quine thesis, talk of an “empirical refutation” of OIC is empirically and methodologically unwarranted. What the empirical fact that people attribute moral obligations to unable agents shows is that OIC is not intuitive, not that OIC has been refuted.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2017-09-18
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
485 ( #15,858 of 71,292 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
28 ( #29,903 of 71,292 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.