HElp!I have a philosophical Problem on Immanuel kant.?

"I ought to go to the store for my mom"

"I can go to the store for my mom"

In the first, we leave out that we will indeed go. It is implying a possibility but not an act.

In the second, it is as if we are accepting the obligation and responsibility. Think of both as a response of a younger brother to an older brother that just asked everyone in the family "Who can go to the store for mom?" In the first case, you show the possibility; in the second case, you show that you yourself WILL go.

I cannot say I have read Kant. I have heard the "ought implies can," but without the "must" included.

Kant did talk about responsibility. Among the choices available, we are morally bound ("we must" or "we ought") choose to do what pleases God the most, if that is the proper standard (there may be others). We are not obligated to reach for the impossible, as many authors of his time (and some at present) claim. That is the sense of "ought implies can," the sense that moral duty extends only to the possible.

You would be best served to look at his categorical imperative. Kant can not be properly understood in this format of question and answer. But to most directly answer your question, what one ought to do is the best possible thing that they logically accomplish. For example if the most moral thing anyone could do was fly, there would be no imperative because a human can not fly. What one ought to do, and have the ability to do, is what they must do.

I f something ought to happen like people in africa ought not to be starving, kant believes that it is possible and as it is possible should be followed hence the must.

However does ought really mean can??

what should happen doesnt mean that it can or will. etc.