Philosophical Studies 175 (10):2399-2417 (2018)

Authors
Claire Benn
Australian National University
Abstract
A familiar part of debates about supererogatory actions concerns the role that cost should play. Two camps have emerged: one claiming that extreme cost is a necessary condition for when an action is supererogatory, while the other denies that it should be part of our definition of supererogation. In this paper, I propose an alternative position. I argue that it is comparative cost that is central to the supererogatory and that it is needed to explain a feature that all accounts agree is central to the very notion of supererogation: optionality. Perhaps because of this agreement on its importance, few attempts have been made to clarify and explain the notion of optionality. I argue that giving an account of the optionality of supererogatory requires drawing a line between doing the bare minimum permissible and going beyond the bare minimum and that this line ought to be drawn based on comparative cost of alternative permissible acts. Having outlined my account and motivated it, I discuss and reject two concerns that might be raised: firstly, that it is extreme cost, not comparative cost, that matters and, secondly, that in fact no cost is needed for an act to be supererogatory.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-017-0965-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory.Liam B. Murphy - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Supererogation: Its Status in Ethical Theory.David Heyd - 1982 - Cambridge University Press.

View all 38 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Impermissible yet Praiseworthy.Theron Pummer - 2021 - Ethics 131 (4):697-726.
Supererogation.Alfred Archer - 2018 - Philosophy Compass 13 (3).
The Rationally Supererogatory.Claire Benn & Adam Bales - 2020 - Mind 129 (515):917-938.
Infinite options, intransitive value, and supererogation.Daniel Muñoz - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 178 (6):2063-2075.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Virtue Theory, Ideal Observers, and the Supererogatory.Jason Kawall - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 146 (2):179-96.
The Nature of Supererogation.M. W. Jackson - 1986 - Journal of Value Inquiry 20 (4):289-296.
Self-Regarding Supererogatory Actions.Jason Kawall - 2003 - Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (3):487–498.
Why Proximity Matters for the Concept of Supererogation.Simone Grigoletto - 2017 - Etica and Politica / Ethics and Politics 19 (1):291-307.
Promising and Supererogation.Jason Kawall - 2005 - Philosophia 32 (1-4):389-398.
Supererogation in Clinical Research.Deborah R. Barnbaum - 2008 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11 (3):343-349.
Disjunctive Duties and Supererogatory Sets of Actions.Matthias Brinkmann - 2015 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 77:67-86.
Assimilating Supererogation.D. K. Levy - 2015 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 77:227-242.
Supererogation for Utilitarianism.Jean-Paul Vessel - 2010 - American Philosophical Quarterly 47 (4):299 - 319.
Supererogatory Forgiveness.Espen Gamlund - 2010 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 53 (6):540-564.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-08-16

Total views
231 ( #47,555 of 2,498,779 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
34 ( #25,713 of 2,498,779 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes