Blame, not ability, impacts moral “ought” judgments for impossible actions: Toward an empirical refutation of “ought” implies “can”

@article{Chituc2016BlameNA,
  title={Blame, not ability, impacts moral “ought” judgments for impossible actions: Toward an empirical refutation of “ought” implies “can”},
  author={Vladimir Chituc and P. Henne and W. Sinnott-Armstrong and F. Brigard},
  journal={Cognition},
  year={2016},
  volume={150},
  pages={20-25}
}
Recently, psychologists have explored moral concepts including obligation, blame, and ability. While little empirical work has studied the relationships among these concepts, philosophers have widely assumed such a relationship in the principle that "ought" implies "can," which states that if someone ought to do something, then they must be able to do it. The cognitive underpinnings of these concepts are tested in the three experiments reported here. In Experiment 1, most participants judge… Expand

Figures, Tables, and Topics from this paper

How “ought” exceeds but implies “can”: Description and encouragement in moral judgment
  • J. Turri
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • Cognition
  • 2017
TLDR
Results from two behavioral experiments support the theory that "ought" exceeds but implies "can," and results from a third experiment provide further evidence regarding an 'ought" claim's primary function and how contextual features can affect the interpretation of its functions. Expand
“Ought Implies Can,” Framing Effects, and “Empirical Refutations”
This paper aims to contribute to the current debate about the status of the “Ought Implies Can” (OIC) principle and the growing body of empirical evidence that undermines it. We report the results ofExpand
Ability, Responsibility, and Global Justice
Many have argued that we have a moral obligation to assist others in need, but given the scope of global suffering, how far does this obligation extend? According to one traditional philosophicalExpand
Does ought imply can?
TLDR
It is argued in this paper that due to some problems in their design, Buckwalter & Turri’s conclusions may not be warranted, and the results of a series of studies demonstrating the problems with their design are presented and showing that, with an improved design, people judge that obligation depends on ability after all. Expand
INABILITY AND OBLIGATION IN INTELLECTUAL EVALUATION
ABSTRACT If moral responsibilities prescribe how agents ought to behave, are there also intellectual responsibilities prescribing what agents ought to believe? Many theorists have argued that thereExpand
“Ought” Implies “Can” but Does Not Imply “Must”: An Asymmetry between Becoming Infeasible and Becoming Overridden
There is an apparent—and, to my knowledge, unnoticed—tension between two central ideas in moral philosophy. One of these ideas is that people never have obligations that they cannot obey; in otherExpand
Theoretical Motivation of “Ought Implies Can”
A standard principle in ethics is that moral obligation entails ability, or that “ought implies can”. A strong case has been made that this principle is not well motivated in moral psychology. ThisExpand
Implicit attitudes and the ability argument
According to one picture of the mind, decisions and actions are largely the result of automatic cognitive processing beyond our ability to control. This picture is in tension with a foundationalExpand
Does Non-Moral Ignorance Exculpate? Situational Awareness and Attributions of Blame and Forgiveness
In this paper, we set out to test empirically an idea that many philosophers find intuitive, namely that non-moral ignorance can exculpate. Many philosophers find it intuitive that moral agents areExpand
Why Impossible Options Are Better: Consequentializing Dilemmas
Abstract To consequentialize a deontological moral theory is to give a theory which issues the same moral verdicts, but explains those verdicts in terms of maximizing or satisficing value. There areExpand
...
1
2
3
4
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 32 REFERENCES
Inability and Obligation in Moral Judgment
TLDR
Together these results demonstrate that commonsense morality rejects the “ought implies can” principle for moral requirements, and that judgments about moral obligation are made independently of considerations about ability. Expand
Moral Theory and the Ought—Can Principle
Does 'ought' imply 'can'? Surely it does. For we do not hold a person to blame for not doing something he was unable to do.' On the other hand, surely it does not. For, if it did, the negation of aExpand
Unifying morality’s influence on non-moral judgments: The relevance of alternative possibilities
TLDR
It is proposed that moral judgment influences the degree to which people regard certain alternative possibilities as relevant, which in turn impacts intuitions about freedom, causation, doing/allowing, and intentional action. Expand
A Theory of Blame
We introduce a theory of blame in five parts. Part 1 addresses what blame is: a unique moral judgment that is both cognitive and social, regulates social behavior, fundamentally relies on socialExpand
The Role of Conscious Reasoning and Intuition in Moral Judgment
TLDR
The moral principles used in judgment must be directly compared with those articulated in justification, and doing so shows that some moral principles are available to conscious reasoning whereas others are not. Expand
Moral Judgments and Intuitions About Freedom
Reeder’s article offers a new and intriguing approach to the study of people’s ordinary understanding of freedom and constraint. On this approach, people use information about freedom and constraintExpand
`Ought' Conversationally Implies `Can'
The principle that 'ought' implies 'can' is often taken for granted in discussions of determinism, moral dilemmas, and other areas of practical reasoning. Yet the principle is seldom discussedExpand
Pushing moral buttons: The interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment
TLDR
A method for controlling for people's real-world expectations in decisions involving potentially unrealistic hypothetical dilemmas is introduced and the influence of personal force on moral judgment is demonstrated, distinguishing it from physical contact and spatial proximity. Expand
An Empirical Refutation of ‘Ought’ Implies ‘Can’
Most philosophers assume that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, and most of them hold that this principle is true not only universally but also analytically or conceptually. Some skeptics deny this principle,Expand
Asymmetry in Judgments of Moral Blame and Praise
TLDR
Three experiments investigated judgments of moral blame and praise elicited when individuals were presented with vignettes describing actions that were performed either carefully and deliberately or impulsively and uncontrollably. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
...