Abstract

Consequentialism, in its standard form, violates “ought” implies “can.” This is unacceptable; we must find a new formulation of the theory. I argue against contextualizing “oughts” as a means of solving this problem before discussing a more promising solution, maximalism. I argue that maximalism, while attractive, gives an unsatisfactory picture of what obligations are and why we have them. I defend holism, an alternative that upholds both "ought" implies "can" and the nature of obligation. Lastly, I discuss how this relates to the actualism/possibilism debate, and how the debate can move forward.