The Words of the Eby Family

Viewpoint: Does Can Imply Ought?

Lloyd Eby
Published February 4, 2006
World Peace Herald Contributor

WASHINGTON -- The statement "ought implies can" is now accepted as true by almost all ethics theorists. That claim is based on a logical relation between "ought" (or "should) and "can," whereby if it is true that or makes sense to say that someone - a person or other agent - ought to do something, then that person or agent must have the power or ability to do whatever he/she/it ought to do. Conversely, if an agent cannot do something - lacks the ability to do it - that refutes the claim that this agent ought to do it. It doesn't make sense to say that an agent ought to do something that he/she/it cannot do. So we can say that "ought implies can" is necessarily true, given the meaning of "ought," "can," and the causal and logical relationship between them.

Today many people look at some catastrophe or difficult problem as it exists in the world - the spread of AIDS, the genocide now taking place in Darfur, the rise of global warming, substandard working conditions for industrial workers in the developing world, victims of Katrina or of the earthquakes in Pakistan, or any of many others - and declare that the United States, or "corporations," or the UN, or "people" or some other group or power should take on or become more involved in solving the described problem. The underlying assumption is that because the U.S. or the UN or corporations or whatever other individual or group is mentioned has the power to do something to alleviate the problem should it choose to do so, then it ought to do so.

There is a continuing disagreement among philosophers who work in business ethics about whether a corporation can make ethical (or moral - I use these two terms interchangeably, as synonyms) decisions. Some say the answer is no because, they claim, the corporation can be compared to a machine because its structure makes it able only to pursue profits. Machines cannot be held to be ethically responsible; only agents who have decision-making ability can be moral/ethical agents. If, for example, something goes mechanically wrong in the brakes of your car and as a result of brake failure you hit and kill a pedestrian, the car is not prosecuted for a crime. But if you are negligent in caring for your car and the result is as stated, you can be held to be both ethically and legally responsible. You are an ethical agent; your car is not.

Other business ethics theorists - the majority of them nowadays - hold that a corporation can be an ethical/moral agent. This occurs because the corporation has an internal decision structure, controlled by people - and people are ethical/moral agents - who collect data and make decisions and give orders about what the corporation will do, so the corporation can show the same rationality and intentionality as an individual. Thus it can make moral/ethical decisions, and its decisions can be subject to ethical assessment and criticism. Most philosophers who hold that corporations can make ethical decisions go on to say that corporations and businesses have other ethical obligations in addition to making profits. These philosophers say that because businesses and corporations nowadays have such great social power they therefore have social responsibilities. The social power of businesses and corporations derives from the very large amounts of money moving through them, the number of people they employ, and their standing and influence within a community, state, and the nation. These other obligations or responsibilities may include such things as working to minimize and alleviate social ills such as racism and sexism, contributing to raising the health care of a community, working to improve schools and education, working to alleviate pollution and harm to the environment, and in general contributing to the quality of life of all the people in communities in which the business is located, and possibly to the greater social welfare of the state, nation, or even the world.

The unstated or tacit principle underlying all those claims is the opposite of "ought implies can." It is, instead, some version of "can implies ought." Those who make claims such as those mentioned above are beginning with the assumption that the potential agent named in the given claim has the power or ability to do whatever is mentioned, and that possession of this power confers on the agent a responsibility to use that power to alleviate the problem. This responsibility is almost always understood as an ethical one; it may also be understood politically, financially, religiously, or in some other similar way. So we should investigate "can implies ought" to see whether and to what extent it is true or accurate.

The first thing to notice is that "can implies ought" does not rest on the same logical foundation as "ought implies can." "Can implies ought" is not necessarily true. Its truth, if it is indeed true, depends on acceptance of a principle that an agent who has the ability to help in a given situation thereby has some ethical responsibility to help. This is not a principle of logic, but instead could be called a principle of beneficence. Another way of stating it would be to say that humans, qua human, have some inherent responsibility to give aid to or to look out for the well-being and welfare of other humans when they have the ability to do so.

"Can implies ought," if it is an ethical principle, is primarily a deontological one, meaning that it comes about through a rule supposedly derived from the nature of human beings. German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) claimed that we must treat every person as an end in himself and never as a means only. He also wrote that we should "Recognize that everyone is sovereign as well as subject...." William Reese says that that this "...can be seen as a Cultural Imperative, requiring equal rights, and leading from ethics into social philosophy. [This]... imperative is implicit in Kant's view...." much of social philosophy is, indeed, based on acceptance of the "can implies ought" principle.

It may also be possible to derive the claim "can implies ought" on a utilitarian basis if it could be shown that adopting this principle would lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, and I think nearly all utilitarians would make that conclusion.

It is noteworthy that the Bible - for those who care what the Bible says - contains at least two verses on this subject: "But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" (I John 3:17) and "Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin" (James 4: 17; both quotes from the Revised Standard Version).

Those quotes seem to refer only to individuals, but those who argue for corporate responsibility extend the principle to corporate agents, governments, and other aggregates of persons too. But even if one accepts the principle embodied in those Biblical injunctions, this does not answer the question of where, when, how much, and what should be done to fulfill the command to act. Deciding whether and when an agent - whether understood as an individual or as a corporate entity - should act, what kind of action should be taken, how much should be done, the circumstances and contours of the action, and so on requires practical knowledge and practical wisdom.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) discussed practical knowledge, distinguishing it from theoretical knowledge. Theoretical knowledge, he claimed, is knowledge such as is used in the natural sciences and in mathematic and logic. In that domain precision is possible, so it is a mistake to fail to seek it. Practical knowledge or practical wisdom, however, is what is used in the domains of ethics and politics, and here precision is not possible. So it is a mistake to demand or ask for precision in this domain, whereas it is a mistake to fail to ask for it in the domain of theoretical knowledge.

Possessing and using practical knowledge and practical wisdom is a virtue, and virtues can, Aristotle held, be learned. He also held that many - but not all - virtues are means between extremes, both extremes being vices. In the specific case of giving money or other help to a charity or to a needy person or agency, as in the kinds of cases mentioned above, to give too little is to be stingy and to give too much is to be profligate; both of those are vices. So the one doing the giving needs to use practical wisdom to decide what is the right - the virtuous - amount.

Figuring out what is the right amount is not a matter of simple calculation, but requires examining the circumstances of the intended recipient as well as the circumstances of the agent who intends to give to determine what is the best answer to the problem. Moreover, what is virtuous will vary from person to person. In the case of courage, for example - courage being a mean between the vices of cowardice and foolhardiness - what counts as proper courage depends on the station of the actor; we expect policemen and soldiers to exercise greater courage in fulfilling their offices than we expect of ordinary citizens, and if ordinary citizens behave as we expect policemen and soldiers to behave, that might be a vice for the ordinary citizen. In the case of giving to a charity, the proper amount to give depends on the financial circumstances of the giver as well as the financial circumstances of the recipient. In the case of coming to the aid of people in Darfur, practical calculations need to include complex assessments of the power and role of agents that are supposed to intervene, the political situation in Darfur, whether intervention is likely to make the overall situation better or worse, and so on.

As on some other subjects, John F. Kennedy had an important comment on this one, so we can give him the last word. He declared, "For of those to whom much is given, much is required." But we must also note that Kennedy was quoting from the Bible, Luke 12:48.


[Lloyd Eby teaches in the philosophy department at the George Washington University, Washington, DC.]

 Download entire page and pages related to it in ZIP format
Table of Contents
Information
Tparents Home