Does Ought Imply Can? A Christian Response.
Ought Implies Can; this is a dictum that was put forward by the enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. On this view, unless people can do otherwise, it would be ridicules to give them prescriptions to do anything else than what they are going to do. Such is a basic and simplistic understanding of the dictum, but will suffice for the purpose of this post. So, does this mean we need to be able to do otherwise for behaviour we consider good to be proscribed?
I hope by the grace of God to give a Christian response to this. The first qualm I have is that God nowhere in scripture gives this as a moral basis. In fact, where scriptures give a sufficient theodicy (such as Romans and The Book of Job) no appeal to a dictum like Kant’s is made. Take for example the following verse,
On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? — Romans 9:20–22
Nowhere does it claim that God’s right to hold people blame worthy is necessitated by an ability to do otherwise. God’s power to hold blame and praise steams from his position as creator over all. I defend this theodicy here in full detail.
Now, some might claim that not being found in scripture does not exclude the dictum as a possibility, we are still not obliged from scripture to withhold belief in the dictum. The argument has to stand or fall on its own. Fortunately, it cannot stand on its own. There are oughts that do not imply cans. To illustrate this, let’s use a simple thought experiment.
Robert makes a deal with Samantha to teach her daughter Amber to draw euclidean triangles that have an internal sum greater than 180 degrees. Yet, knowing what the rest of us do about euclidean axioms, all triangles only have an internal sum of 180 degrees. So, when we draw any kind of triangle, it ought to have an internal sum 180 degree. This in no way implies the triangle can have anything other than 180 degrees, but it is an ought considering our knowledge of what a triangle essentially is. If Robert knew this going into the deal, should he be excused from obligations to finish his contract because cannot do it (given that an ought needs to imply a can)?
I would say not, since we have expectations that derive from the nature of what things are. We know from the nature of a triangle, they ought to have three sides. Likewise, humans are socio-rational animals and this is why if they do not rectify their reason in accord with reality, they are working contrary to what they ought be.
It is the rectitude of the particular thing to the essence of what it is that is at the very core of justice as Saint Anselm argues. A human wills to an end, whereas stones do not. A human has a grasp of knowledge to what it ought do by nature (even if never acts upon it). This is what suffices for blame and praise worthiness 1. Since Robert committed himself to a contract, he is still obliged to follow up on his contract as a rational being (who can 1. comprehend, and 2. make a commitment), or face punishment. In his act of comprehension and commitment, he committed himself to a task he knew was impossible (whereas rationality directs us to acting
If I commit myself to an evil action through reason and will, I will myself to that particular end in a way analogous to Robert, committing himself to a contract without hope of completion. After all, evil remains evil, just like the logically impossible remains uninstantiable.
End Notes
1 — Saint Anselm, “On Truth”. Page 22 (translated by Thomas Williams)
This article was originally published on SkepticFreeThought.com, you will not find any of my work there (I archived it to rework here). But, click the link for some nifty atheist content.
This post is one of a series on the Kant-Augustinian Synthesis, the rest you can find here.
