Synthese 16 (3-4):321 - 331 (1966)
We first summarize and comment upon a 'calculus of intrinsic preferability' which we have presented in detail elsewhere. 1 Then we set forth 'the problem of supererogation' - a problem which, according to some, has presented difficulties for deontic logic. And, finally, we propose a moral or deontic interpretation of the calculus of intrinsic preferability which, we believe, enables us to solve the problem of supererogation.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
The Supererogatory and How Not To Accommodate It: A Reply to Dorsey.Alfred Archer - 2016 - Utilitas 28 (2):179-188.
Reason, Responsibility, and Free Will: Reply to My Critics. [REVIEW]Ishtiyaque Haji - 2012 - Journal of Ethics 16 (2):175-209.
A New Semantical Approach to the Logic of Preference.Sven Ove Hansson - 1989 - Erkenntnis 31 (1):1 - 42.
Supererogation, Blame, and the Limits of Obligation.Gregory Mellema - 1994 - Philosophia 24 (1-2):171-182.
Supererogation and Business Ethics.Gregory Mellema - 1991 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 8 (2):191-199.
Similar books and articles
The Case for Intrinsic Theory: III. Intrinsic Inner Awareness and the Problem of Straightforward Objectivation.Thomas Natsoulas - 1998 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 19 (1):1-19.
On a Principle of Epistemic Preferability.Roderick M. Chisholm - 1969 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 30 (2):294-301.
Is It Bad to Omit an Act of Supererogation?Gregory Mellema - 1996 - Journal of Philosophical Research 21:405-416.
Supererogation for Utilitarianism.Jean-Paul Vessel - 2010 - American Philosophical Quarterly 47 (4):299 - 319.
Deontic Morality and the Problem of Supererogation.Millard Schumaker - 1972 - Philosophical Studies 23 (6):427 - 428.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads69 ( #76,059 of 2,169,134 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #345,573 of 2,169,134 )
How can I increase my downloads?