Philosophy and Public Affairs 44 (1):7-45 (2016)

Nicholas Southwood
Australian National University
Many of us feel internally conflicted in the face of certain normative claims that make infeasible demands: say, normative claims that demand that agents do what, given deeply entrenched objectionable character traits, they cannot bring themselves to do. On the one hand, such claims may seem false on account of demanding the infeasible, and insisting otherwise may seem to amount to objectionable unworldliness – to chasing “pies in the sky.” On the other hand, such claims may seem true in spite of making infeasible demands, and insisting otherwise may seem to amount to treating the agents in question with undue lenience – to mistakenly letting them “off the hook.” What is going on? One possibility is that we are making a mistake. I explore the alternative hypothesis that our ambivalent reactions, far from involving any mistake, are entirely consistent and appropriate. Rather than some single privileged ought such that the idea that “ought” implies “feasible” is either true or false, there are simply different oughts that are supposed to be capable of operating in the service of, and playing distinct roles associated with, what I shall call different core normative practices. In particular, there is a) some salient core practice-serving ought for which it’s true that “ought” implies “feasible” and b) some other salient core practice-serving ought for which it’s false that “ought” implies “feasible.” I sketch a framework for understanding different core practice-serving oughts in general and then use this framework to consider which particular core practice-serving oughts might be capable of vindicating our ambivalence. I begin by considering and rejecting a prevalent and prima facie promising account according to which the relevant oughts are the prescriptive ought and the evaluative ought. I then propose a different account that holds that the oughts we need are instead the deliberative ought and the hypological ought.
Keywords Feasibility  "  Ought"   implies "  can"  Deliberative ought  Non-ideal theory
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/papa.12067
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

He/She/They/Ze.Robin Dembroff & Daniel Wodak - 2018 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 5.
The Feasibility Issue.Nicholas Southwood - 2018 - Philosophy Compass 13 (8):e12509.

View all 25 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

"Actual" Does Not Imply "Feasible".Nicholas Southwood & David Wiens - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (11):3037-3060.
Towards a ‘Non‐Ideal’ Non‐Ideal Theory.Brian Carey - 2015 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 32 (2):147-162.
Demands of Justice, Feasible Alternatives, and the Need for Causal Analysis.David Wiens - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (2):325-338.
The Importance of Defining the Feasible Set.Tyler Cowen - 2007 - Economics and Philosophy 23 (1):1-14.
Ought to Believe.Matthew Chrisman - 2008 - Journal of Philosophy 105 (7):346-370.
Feasibility Constraints for Political Theories.Holly Lawford-Smith - 2010 - Dissertation, Australian National University
Justice and Feasibility: A Dynamic Approach.Pablo Gilabert - 2017 - In K. Vallier & M. Weber (eds.), Political Utopias: Contemporary Debates. Oxford University Press. pp. 95-126.
Epistemic Deontologism and Role-Oughts.Jon Altschul - 2014 - Logos and Episteme 5 (3):245-263.


Added to PP index

Total views
726 ( #9,198 of 2,462,724 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
97 ( #6,975 of 2,462,724 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes