Kant Implies Can

702 Words3 Pages
The idea that 'ought implies can', heavily associated with the compatibilist Kant, lies within the reasoning of responsibility. Breaking down the phrase 'ought implies can' it is clear that the word 'ought' refers to the ability to do so, whilst 'implies' infers that if it is in your power to do so then, like a moral law, there should be no questioning the action. For example: if a man has the means to save a life, and does so, they have accepted responsibility whilst also accepting the reward. Whereas, if a man is faced with a similar situation and chooses not to save the person then they too have accepted the responsibility, and subsequently the punishment. However, if it was the case that the man did not have the means to save the life, not being able to meet the first requirement 'ought', then there should be no responsibility, hence no reward or punishment, placed upon the man. Whilst the components 'ought' and 'implies' have been addressed, from the notion 'ought implies can', the final key factor…show more content…
When looking at Kant's definition of free actions: if it does not suffer coercion or constraint, either physical or psychological, for example not being afflicted with the threat of violence or an addiction then the action is free. However, Kant would also argue that our free decisions are still confined within the causal chain, thus it may have been free from a macro sense but the decision is, in many ways, still an aspect of causation. I could not have done otherwise. But, as it has already been established, Kant's notion of freedom is different to that of both the Determinist and Libertarian arguments, in the sense that, his argument follows the claim that: I could have done otherwise if the situation that led to my decision was different. However, Sartre would argue against Kant's understanding of freewill claiming it as

More about Kant Implies Can

Open Document