Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (2):263-281 (2011)
|Abstract||Governments are subject to the requirements of justice, yet often seem to go above and beyond what justice requires in order to act in ways many people think are good. These kinds of acts – examples of which include putting on celebrations, providing grants to poets, and preserving historic architecture – appear to be acts of government supererogation. In this paper, I argue that a common view about the relationship between government, coercion, and justice implies that most such acts are not supererogatory, but wrong. Many will find that conclusion unattractive, but rejecting the common view that implies it raises problems, too|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gregory Mellema (1996). Is It Bad to Omit an Act of Supererogation? Journal of Philosophical Research 21:405-416.
Alfred Archer (2013). Supererogation and Intentions of the Agent. Philosophia 41 (2):447-462.
John T. Sanders (1980). The Ethical Argument Against Government. University Press of America.
Jean-Paul Vessel (2010). Supererogation for Utilitarianism. American Philosophical Quarterly 47 (4):299 - 319.
Elizabeth Drummond Young (2013). God's Moral Goodness and Supererogation. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73 (2):83-95.
Jason Kawall (2009). Virtue Theory, Ideal Observers, and the Supererogatory. Philosophical Studies 146 (2):179-96.
David Heyd (1982). Supererogation: Its Status in Ethical Theory. Cambridge University Press.
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.
Added to index2011-05-12
Total downloads30 ( #46,310 of 722,699 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,274 of 722,699 )
How can I increase my downloads?