Abstract

This paper criticises the famous “”ought” implies “can”” on the grounds that its main claim - that there can be no unfulfillable obligations - is false. The first part of the paper investigates the use, history and previous literature on the topic, as well as the proper understanding of the principle. The second part presents the main argument, directed at the interpretation of “”ought” implies “can”” as a conceptual truth. It is argued that it must be possible to split the meaning of the term “ought” into component parts, parts that must each be quite capable of functioning on their own. The result is that we cannot conclude that one part of the term “ought” must disappear just because another part of it does so. Finally, in the third part, we tackle some common arguments and intuitions in favour of the principle, and provides a few concluding words and a summary.