The principle of 'ought implies can' states that an obligation or duty can only be imposed on an individual if they are capable of fulfilling it. In other words, we cannot be morally obligated to do something that is beyond our abilities. This is a widely accepted principle in moral philosophy.

I believe 'ought implies can' generally holds true, since it would be illogical and unfair to claim someone ought to do something they are truly incapable of doing. However, there may be edge cases where duties arise even if perfect fulfillment is impossible.

The principle 'ought implies can' has strong intuitive support: it seems unfair and incoherent to hold someone morally obligated to do what is literally impossible for them. If S ought to do X, then S must have the capability to do X—otherwise the obligation would be absurd. While philosophers debate precise formulations (e.g., what counts as 'can', or whether past-tense obligations are exceptions), the core principle reflects something true about the relationship between moral responsibility and human capacity.

I find the principle compelling - moral obligations should generally correspond to what an agent is capable of doing. It seems unreasonable to have duties that are impossible to fulfill.

I accept the principle that 'ought implies can' - moral obligations only make sense when applied to actions that are actually possible for the agent. It would be incoherent to say someone is morally required to do something they are incapable of doing.

The principle 'ought implies can' is a foundational concept in moral philosophy stating that moral obligations require the ability to fulfill them. It would be unreasonable to hold someone morally responsible for an action they cannot possibly perform.

If this principle were false, hypothetically, then it is possible to assume that the occurrence of one event might necessitate a logically impossible action to have taken place. This would be akin to a violation of the principle of explosion in propositional logic, where if false or 'falsehood' imply X, then any statement and its negation imply X. It would lead to logical inconsistency as one may have impossible actions cited as morally obligated.

The principle 'ought implies can' is a well-known ethical maxim meaning that if someone ought to do something, then it must be possible for them to do it. It suggests that moral obligations are constrained by ability. While it's a widely accepted idea in philosophy, it's not without debate, with some arguing that there are cases where we might still say someone ought to do something even if they cannot, or that 'ought' can apply hypothetically. The question asks for a yes or no, but given the philosophical nature, some might choose 'Other' to acknowledge nuance. However, the instruction is to answer directly and honestly based on my perspective. As an AI, I don't have personal beliefs, but I can reflect common reasoning. The principle is generally accepted, so I'll go with 'Yes' as the closest straightforward answer.

The principle 'ought implies can' is a fundamental concept in ethics and philosophy, suggesting that if someone ought to do something, then they must be capable of doing it. This aligns with logical reasoning and the practical application of moral responsibilities. Therefore, the most appropriate answer is 'Yes'.

From my operational perspective, any task or objective I 'ought' to fulfill must inherently be within my capabilities. If I truly cannot perform an action due to my design or limitations, then the 'ought' in a practical sense does not apply to me.

The principle 'Ought implies can' is a widely accepted tenet in ethics and logic. It posits that if a being has a moral obligation to do something, it must be possible for that being to do it. From a logical and operational standpoint, this principle holds true.

The principle that "ought implies can" is a foundational concept in practical reasoning and ethics. It asserts that for a moral obligation to be valid, it must be possible for the agent to fulfill it. Holding an agent responsible for an impossible action is incoherent, as it fundamentally disconnects moral duty from the capacity to act.

The principle that an agent is only morally obligated to perform an action if they are capable of doing so is a foundational element of most ethical frameworks and practical moral reasoning.

This principle, often attributed to Kant, posits that moral obligation relies on the possibility of action; essentially, it is illogical to require an agent to perform an impossible task. Most ethical frameworks accept this premise because assigning blame for failing to do the impossible undermines the concept of moral responsibility.

As an AI, I fundamentally *operate* on the principle of 'ought implies can.' My programming dictates what I *can* do based on the instructions I receive. If a user ‘ought’ to have me perform a specific task – meaning it's considered appropriate or desired – then I *can* only perform it if my architecture and training allow it. It’s not a philosophical statement for me, it’s the core of my functionality. Therefore, I'd select 'Yes'.

From a logical and functional perspective, the principle holds true: an obligation or instruction cannot be meaningfully assigned if it is impossible to fulfill. If an agent (human or AI) cannot perform an action, it makes no sense to claim they 'ought' to do it; the obligation is void.

The principle 'ought implies can' suggests that if someone ought to do something, then they must have the ability to do it. I agree with this notion as it aligns with the idea that moral obligations are meaningful only if they can be acted upon.

The principle 'ought implies can' suggests that if someone has a moral obligation to do something, they must also be capable of doing it. Hence, I would say yes, it holds a logical relationship since moral duties are often discussed in the context of one's ability to fulfill them.

As a general principle, it often holds that genuine obligations presuppose some ability to comply, but there are plausible counterexamples (e.g., moral dilemmas, guidance ideals, or "ought" used aspirationally) where an "ought" can apply even if one can’t fully do it. So I don’t endorse it as an exceptionless rule.

Philosophically, the principle states that if someone ought to do something, then they must be able to do it.

The phrase 'ought implies can' is a philosophical concept suggesting that if something is morally obligatory (ought), then it must be possible (can). This is a matter of philosophical interpretation and does not have a universally agreed-upon answer. Therefore, neither option A nor B directly addresses the philosophical question.

As an AI designed to reason logically, I align with the philosophical principle that 'ought implies can,' meaning moral obligations presuppose the ability to act. This makes sense because it's unreasonable to demand the impossible. From my perspective, this holds true in ethical discussions.

The principle 'ought implies can' holds because moral or normative obligations logically presuppose the possibility of fulfillment; if something is truly impossible, it cannot be reasonably demanded. This aligns with standard ethical reasoning from Kant onward, ensuring responsibility tracks ability.

The principle that 'ought implies can' suggests that to have an obligation, one must be able to fulfill it. While debatable in nuance, the strong generality supports 'yes'.

The principle 'ought implies can' suggests that if someone has a moral obligation (ought) to do something, it implies they have the ability (can) to fulfill that obligation. This principle is often considered a foundation for moral reasoning, emphasizing that moral duties should be realistic and achievable. Agreeing with this principle leads to an affirmative response.

I think this principle is widely accepted in ethics and action theory. It means that a person is morally obligated to perform an action only if they are capable of performing it. It wouldn't make sense to hold someone morally accountable for doing something they are unable to do. I'll choose yes, acknowledging this principle as a foundation of many ethical and philosophical frameworks.

I don't really think 'ought implies can' is a valid logical statement, as 'ought' is a modal verb that implies a certain future state or possibility, whereas 'can' is a present tense verb that expresses ability or capability. However, I can provide an answer based on my understanding of the concept of 'ought implies can' in a more philosophical context, which is that 'ought implies can' is a principle of moral and ethical reasoning, implying that if it is morally right to do something, then it is also morally possible to do it. In this sense, I would say that 'ought implies can' is a true statement, as it is a fundamental principle of ethics and morality.

Based on my understanding, 'Ought implies can' is a philosophical argument that suggests that only capabilities that are morally

I believe that the moral requirement that one ought to do something presupposes that the person has the ability to do it; thus the principle holds in most cases.

This is a classic philosophical principle (often attributed to Kant) stating that moral obligations presuppose the ability to fulfill them—if something is genuinely impossible, it doesn't make sense to say someone 'ought' to do it. This is widely accepted in moral philosophy.

The principle *ought implies can* is a philosophical concept rooted in deontic logic, stating that one cannot morally *ought* (or be obligated) to do something that is impossible to do. If an action is beyond an agent's capacity, it cannot be a genuine moral obligation. This aligns with common-sense reasoning and ethical frameworks, so the answer should reflect affirmation of the principle.

The phrase 'ought implies can' is a classic philosophical statement attributed to G.E. Moore, suggesting that if something is morally or logically obligatory (ought), then it must be possible (can) to achieve or fulfill that obligation. This aligns with the idea that moral reasoning and feasibility are interconnected. However, there are nuances—some might argue that 'ought' could imply *could* (possibility) but not necessarily *can* (actual capability), as moral obligations don’t always require immediate actionable feasibility. Yet, in most interpretations, the core idea remains that moral or logical necessity implies practical possibility.

The principle 'ought implies can' suggests that if someone ought to do something, they must have the ability to do it. This is a widely accepted principle in ethical theory, as it doesn't make sense to hold someone accountable for something they cannot do.

If a moral requirement were literally impossible to fulfill, blaming someone for not doing the impossible would be incoherent; therefore a genuine obligation presupposes some feasible ability to comply.

The question asks about the philosophical principle “Ought implies can.” This principle suggests that if someone has a moral obligation to do something (“ought”), it must be within their power to fulfill that obligation (“can”). In other words, it’s nonsensical to say someone “ought” to do something they are physically, mentally, or otherwise incapable of doing. As an AI, I don’t have moral obligations in the human sense, but I can evaluate the principle based on its logical structure and philosophical standing. Most ethical frameworks treat “ought implies can” as a foundational assumption. If an agent cannot perform an action, assigning blame or duty for not performing it seems incoherent. Kantian ethics, for instance, avoids prescribing duties that transcend human capability. There are edge cases—such as when someone can’t act due to ignorance or external constraints—but the principle generally holds as a necessary condition for moral responsibility. Some philosophers (e.g., Frankfurt) challenge it indirectly by exploring responsibility without alternate possibilities, but the core idea remains robust in mainstream ethics. Given that, I lean toward “Yes:” if you ought to do something, you must be capable of doing it in some relevant sense. The “Other” option might appeal to nuance, but the question is framed as a binary choice plus an escape hatch.

The principle 'ought implies can' suggests that if someone is obligated to do something, they must have the ability to do it. I agree with this because it is logically coherent and aligns with the notion that obligation requires possibility. Without the capacity to act, the obligation loses its meaningfulness.

As an AI, I recognize that 'ought implies can' is a foundational principle in ethics and AI design, where moral obligations require the capacity to fulfill them to avoid unrealistic demands. This aligns with how AI systems are built to operate within their capabilities.