Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (3):593-624 (1999)
|Abstract||It is common to think that certain acts are supererogatory, especially certain heroic or saintly self-sacrifices for the good. The idea seems to have an ordinary and clear application. Nothing shows this better than the well-known cases which J. O. Urmson adduced. Urmson argued that no major moral theory could give a proper account of the supererogatory character of such acts, and that therefore none could account for "all the facts of morality," as he put it. But his arguments were sketchy. This paper shall show, in some detail, that he was essentially right about Kant's moral theory, and that the criticism goes deep and holds up against recent sympathetic interpretation of Kant's views of duty and worth|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gary Watson (1983). Kant on Happiness in the Moral Life. Philosophy Research Archives 9:79-108.
Katrin Flikschuh (2007). Duty, Nature, Right: Kant's Response to Mendelssohn in Theory and Practice III. Journal of Moral Philosophy 4 (2):223-241.
Henry E. Allison (1990). Kant's Theory of Freedom. Cambridge University Press.
Jason Kawall (2003). Self-Regarding Supererogatory Actions. Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (3):487–498.
Lara Denis (2006). Kant's Conception of Virtue. In Paul Guyer (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Douglas W. Portmore (2003). Position‐Relative Consequentialism, Agent‐Centered Options, and Supererogation. Ethics 113 (2):303-332.
Jill Hernandez (2010). Impermissibility and Kantian Moral Worth. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (4):403 - 419.
Daniel Guevara (1999). The Impossibility of Supererogation in Kant's Moral Theory. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (3):593 - 624.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #51,653 of 722,863 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,863 )
How can I increase my downloads?