Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (3):487–498 (2003)
|Abstract||Many philosophers, in discussing supererogation, maintain that supererogatory actions must be done for the benefit of others. In this paper I argue that there can be instances of self-regarding supererogatory actions. That is, there are cases in which the primary (or sole) intended beneficiary of a supererogatory action is the agent herself, and she need not be acting out of a concern for morality or moral rules. In such cases the agent still acts suitably 'beyond the call of duty', and in a morally praiseworthy fashion.|
|Keywords||supererogation self-regarding duty self-regarding supererogation obligation|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nancy A. Stanlick (1999). The Nature and Value of Supererogatory Actions. Journal of Social Philosophy 30 (1):209-222.
Jens Timmermann (2005). Good but Not Required?—Assessing the Demands of Kantian Ethics. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (1):9-27.
Daniel Guevara (1999). The Impossibility of Supererogation in Kant's Moral Theory. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (3):593 - 624.
Daniel Guevara (1999). The Impossibility of Supererogation in Kant's Moral Theory. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (3):593-624.
Douglas W. Portmore (2003). Position‐Relative Consequentialism, Agent‐Centered Options, and Supererogation. Ethics 113 (2):303-332.
Jason Kawall (2009). Virtue Theory, Ideal Observers, and the Supererogatory. Philosophical Studies 146 (2):179-96.
Jason Kawall (2006). On Promising to Supererogate: A Response to Heyd. Philosophia 34 (2):153-156.
Jason Kawall (2005). Promising and Supererogation. Philosophia 32 (1-4):389-398.
Espen Gamlund (2010). Supererogatory Forgiveness. Inquiry 53 (6):540-564.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #36,590 of 549,124 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,390 of 549,124 )
How can I increase my downloads?