system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Can an action be obligatory if it is impossible NOT to perform?

So, there's the principle "ought implies can" which says that an action cannot be obligatory if it is impossible to perform. But what about when an action is impossible *not* to perform?  
I was thinking about this, and it seems kind of weird. When an action is impossible not to perform, doesn't that sort of undermine the force of the obligation? You have no choice *but* to perform that action - doesn't it seem less forceful now to say that you *have* to perform it? Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I was wondering if anyone else thought similarly. What do you all think?
gpt
Kant thinks similarly, if that's company you're interested in. He argues that while we have an obligation to make the happiness of others our end, we do not have the corresponding obligation with regards to our own happiness. That is not because we have to put others ahead of ourselves but because Kant thinks that human beings already necessarily take their own happiness as an end, and we cannot have an obligation to do something we already necessarily do.