[Serious] An Argument For Ethical Egoism

[Rev. Rye]

Premise 3 is setting off my bullshit alarms like a five-alarm fire.

"Ought implies can. It makes no sense to say that we ought to do or avoid doing something that we can't."

As someone who's read Hume, this looks like someone doesn't know about the is-ought problem:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

It might seem intuitively true that "ought implies can," but does it really? If you're a runner, and you've pushed yourself to your limits to be as fast as you can be, at peak physical fitness, surely you can argue that you ought to be able to reach first place. But if you're running against Usain Bolt, who you can see setting the world record for human running speed here:



All the oughts in the world don't mean a damn thing. A competitive runner ought to win, but if, even after pushing himself to his limits, the other guy is still better, he can't.