"Generally the term ought is used to denote blameworthiness"
Why do you say this? That's not at all how the term is commonly used! Both in the philosophical literature and in everyday conversations "You ought to do X" is usually used in the sense of "You have a moral obligation to do X". In that sense utilitarianism seems indeed incompatible with ought implies can, because classical utilitarians believe that you can have obligations which you cannot fullfil.
You are correct that we can use words however we want, but the utilitarian should at least admit that this would be a complete re-definition of the word "ought".
I don't think that's a plausible semantic account. We'd say "you ought to be polite," but it would be strange to say "you have a moral obligation to be polite."
If ought means moral obligation then that just raises the deeper question of whether you have an obligation to do things that you can't do. It seems like the answer to this doesn't reflect what fundamentally matters, it's just a semantic dispute.
I'm confused by your example, because to me it actually DOES seem like there is obligation implied here. I think this can be demonstrated by adding more context to the statement: "Matthew, always remember: you ought to be polite! But of course I am not saying that you MUST be polite, don't ever feel obliged to be polite to others."
If ought didn't imply obligation here, then those two sentences should sound perfectly fine... but in fact they sound incredibly strange and outright contradictory.
But even if it were true that there are SOME cases where ought doesn't imply an obligation, then this really wouldn't matter: The ought implies can principle is only concerned with obligations, which is also why the principle is defined as "If A is obligatory, then A is possible" in deontic logic. The Britannia Encyclopedia also agrees with me: "ought implies can, in ethics, the principle according to which an agent has a moral obligation to perform a certain action only if it is possible for him or her to perform it"
The broad problem is that I think we often use morally tinged language in ways that don't reflect what fundamentally matters, that has weird implications. For example, it would be weird to say that a tornado is immoral, but fine to say that a tornado is bad. I think that ought is similar in this regard--whether it implies can is a semantic dispute that doesn't go to any genuine disagreement about anything.
Maybe, but we were literally having a discussion about semantics, I was very clear about that :)
(Fwiw I don't agree that OIC is only a semantic dispute, in fact I think it's one of the most important moral principles, but we're not gonna settle that disagreement here)
"Generally the term ought is used to denote blameworthiness"
Why do you say this? That's not at all how the term is commonly used! Both in the philosophical literature and in everyday conversations "You ought to do X" is usually used in the sense of "You have a moral obligation to do X". In that sense utilitarianism seems indeed incompatible with ought implies can, because classical utilitarians believe that you can have obligations which you cannot fullfil.
You are correct that we can use words however we want, but the utilitarian should at least admit that this would be a complete re-definition of the word "ought".
I don't think that's a plausible semantic account. We'd say "you ought to be polite," but it would be strange to say "you have a moral obligation to be polite."
If ought means moral obligation then that just raises the deeper question of whether you have an obligation to do things that you can't do. It seems like the answer to this doesn't reflect what fundamentally matters, it's just a semantic dispute.
I'm confused by your example, because to me it actually DOES seem like there is obligation implied here. I think this can be demonstrated by adding more context to the statement: "Matthew, always remember: you ought to be polite! But of course I am not saying that you MUST be polite, don't ever feel obliged to be polite to others."
If ought didn't imply obligation here, then those two sentences should sound perfectly fine... but in fact they sound incredibly strange and outright contradictory.
But even if it were true that there are SOME cases where ought doesn't imply an obligation, then this really wouldn't matter: The ought implies can principle is only concerned with obligations, which is also why the principle is defined as "If A is obligatory, then A is possible" in deontic logic. The Britannia Encyclopedia also agrees with me: "ought implies can, in ethics, the principle according to which an agent has a moral obligation to perform a certain action only if it is possible for him or her to perform it"
The broad problem is that I think we often use morally tinged language in ways that don't reflect what fundamentally matters, that has weird implications. For example, it would be weird to say that a tornado is immoral, but fine to say that a tornado is bad. I think that ought is similar in this regard--whether it implies can is a semantic dispute that doesn't go to any genuine disagreement about anything.
Maybe, but we were literally having a discussion about semantics, I was very clear about that :)
(Fwiw I don't agree that OIC is only a semantic dispute, in fact I think it's one of the most important moral principles, but we're not gonna settle that disagreement here)