caa a22 4500 388067330 CHVBK 20180307125136.0 cr unu---uuuuu 161130e199903 xx s 000 0 eng 10.1017/S0953820800002302 doi S0953820800002302 pii (NATIONALLICENCE)cambridge-10.1017/S0953820800002302 Howard-Snyder Frances Western Washington University, franhs@henson.cc.wwu.edu Response to Carlson and Qizilbash [Elektronische Daten] [Frances Howard-Snyder] In ‘The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism' I argued against objective consequentialism on the grounds that it requires us to do what we cannot do and hence violates the principle that ‘ought' implies ‘can'. Erik Carlson and Mozaffar Qizilbash have raised objections to my arguments, chiefly by distinguishing different senses of ‘can' and ‘ought'. I here attempt to rebut those challenges. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999 Utilitas Cambridge University Press 11/1(1999-03), 106-111 0953-8208 11:1<106 1999 11 UTI https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820800002302 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820800002302 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 100 1- Howard-Snyder Frances Western Washington University, franhs@henson.cc.wwu.edu NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- Utilitas Cambridge University Press 11/1(1999-03), 106-111 0953-8208 11:1<106 1999 11 UTI CC0 http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-cambridge