Comment on “Supererogation for Utilitarianism,” by J. P. Vessel
|Abstract||Supererogation is the theory that some acts go beyond the call of duty. They are praiseworthy, but their omission is not blameworthy. Notice that supererogation has to do with praise and blame as well as with what is a duty or morally obligatory. Moral duty requires a moral system on the basis of which duty or obligation is assigned. Utilitarianism can provide a criterion of moral obligation, and it can also provide a criterion for moral praise and blame. However, there is no necessity that the utilitarian criteria for praise and blame should be precisely correlated with its criteria of the morally obligatory and permissible|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Andrew Eshleman, Moral Responsibility. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Jean-Paul Vessel (2010). Supererogation for Utilitarianism. American Philosophical Quarterly 47 (4):299 - 319.
Gregory Mellema (1996). Is It Bad to Omit an Act of Supererogation? Journal of Philosophical Research 21:405-416.
Paul Lauritzen (1987). Forgiveness: Moral Prerogative or Religious Duty? Journal of Religious Ethics 15 (2):141 - 154.
Douglas W. Portmore (forthcoming). Supererogation. In J. E. Crimmins & D. C. Long (eds.), Encyclopedia of Utilitarianism.
Wlodek Rabinowicz (2000). Kotarbinski's Early Criticism of Utilitarianism. Utilitas 12 (01):79-.
T. L. S. Sprigge (1965). A Utilitarian Reply to Dr. McCloskey. Inquiry 8 (1-4):264 – 291.
Douglas W. Portmore, Chapter 5: Dual-Ranking Act-Consequentialism: Reasons, Morality, and Overridingness.
Jonathan Dancy (1993). Beyond the Call of Duty: Supererogation, Obligation and Offence. Philosophical Books 34 (1):48-49.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #101,164 of 722,870 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?