(October 24, 2013 at 2:50 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: If you're talking about Kant's idea that "ought implies can", that's in error because to say something is an ought is only to say that if it can be done it should be done. It doesn't address whether or not it actually can be done.
Actually, not addressing that is a cop-out to begin with. Because its common in many religious moralities and now, apparently Kant's morality. To set up a moral standard with a bunch of things that "ought to be done", but "can't be done" is stacking the game in your favor. You are setting up an impossible standard for someone to live by and then penalizing them for not living up to it.
