ABSTRACT
The literature on Ought Implies Can (OIC) is peppered with motivations for adopting OIC. Much more common than motivations for denying OIC are counterarguments and counterexamples to the principle. In response, the OIC defender may take issue with different components of promising as understood. Role obligations pose a problem for OIC because there will very commonly be situations in which a teacher is unable to explain something clearly, a lifeguard’s attention lapses, or a citizen cannot obey the law. The best hope for the OIC defender is to say either that contractual and role obligations don’t give rise to genuine moral obligations, and that OIC only applies to moral obligations; or that contractual and role obligations don’t really exist. In addition to suggesting that blameworthiness and wrongdoing come apart, the OIC denier may reject OIC in favor of a slightly different principle that connects moral responsibility to ability.
