Four Arguments Against Objective Consequentialism Related to “Ought” Implies “Can” 1

This chapter develops four arguments against objective consequentialism that are based on considerations underlying the principle that “ought” implies “can”. The arguments concern cases involving acts that cannot be obligatory according to Ought Implies Can as well as closely related acts that are obligatory according to objective consequentialism. While “ought” implies “can” explains why the former acts cannot be obligatory, the considerations underlying “ought” implies “can” explain why the latter acts cannot be obligatory. But since objective consequentialism implies that the latter acts are obligatory, objective consequentialism is at odds with the considerations underlying “ought” implies “can”. The considerations underlying “ought” implies “can” are: intuitive plausibility, the action-guidingness of moral theories, considerations of blameworthiness and fairness, and the nature of moral reasons.