I've written a short note addressing the latest attack on OIC, the principle that states that "ought" implies "can". I've written on OIC before, but last time I was addressing an argument for it. This time, I'm addressing an argument against.
Might I be incapable of meeting my obligations?
It's a response to a paper of Peter Graham's which is forthcoming in Philosophical Review. (You can find his much longer (and, regrettably, more interesting) paper here).