Correction to: The Journal of Ethics

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-023-09463-4

In the original publication of the article a statement on how Kant is quoted has appeared twice: at the beginning of footnote 1 and as a separate footnote 5. The correct footnote 1 is as follows:

There is a substantive debate about how to understand the “can” here, i.e., whether this should be interpreted as nomological, psychological or other forms of possibility (see van Ackeren, K?hler 2016). Kant famously holds a version of Ought Implies Can (VI:49fn., VIII:276.37–277.3, 287.35-8), according to which agents can do everything that is morally required of them (Timmermann). This is so because morality requires omissions (perfect duties) and adoption of ends (imperfect duties), which is simply a matter of choice and not constrained by external factors. Difficult questions arise when it comes to the application of obligatory ends to specific cases that come with constraints such as an agent’s material resources, time, other commitments, attention, etc. For present purposes, I suggest that we understand “can” broadly as what it is possible for an agent to give and do without lowering their wellbeing to the level of the worst off. This might require that agents sacrifice all of their spare resources including time, i.e., everything that they do not absolutely need to avoid extreme hardship. A prominent position that affirms that agents in fact can and should sacrifice as much is Singer’s (1972) strong rescue principle.

The original article has been corrected.