(June 16, 2019 at 8:15 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Looking at Khem’s reply, I think I probably should have gone for the jugular and pointed out how many of the larger scale problems of the world are perfect counterexamples to the “ought implies can” idea.
AIDS in Africa is going out of control, police brutality in America is based on so many complicated issues that it’s likely virtually impossible to solve, and any attempts at keeping global warming at bay hang like a Sword of Damocles with the world’s plutocrats, knives in hand, cutting at the thread.
These are even clearer examples of an ought that can’t than a runner going up against Usain Bolt. They can’t be bypassed by just deciding to not go up against someone who holds 19 world records. These are serious issues happening right now, particularly the last one, that we ought to take care of, and it’s not likely they can be solved.
I think it is possible to work toward improving the problems you listed. And our moral duty is therefore to do what we can to make an impact. Not to fling ourselves against a wall and achieve nothing.
Thought experiment: Let's say you had a choice to do one of two things:
1. Win a hundred meter dash against Usain Bolt and cure HIV the world over.
or
2. Win a hundred meter dash against a high school track and fielder and make the lives of people suffering from AIDS more comfortable.
Since it is impossible to win a race against Usain Bolt, why bother trying? With a little effort, option 2 is possible and it creates a real change in the world. Option 1, if you CAN manage to do it, produces a better outcome, but how is this outcome relevant if it is not achievable?
I suppose what we are getting at with the "ought implies can" issue is the importance of consequentialism in ethics.
