Are Acts of Supererogation Always Praiseworthy

Bibliographic Data

ID20142924
AuthorsAlex Archer (0000-0001-9398-6427, Tilburg University, corresponding author), Alfred Archer
Year2016
Volume82
Issue3
Pages238-255
Publication date2016-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueTheoria (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0040-5825 • E-ISSN: 1755-2567
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/theo.12085
OpenAlexW2221942299
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited31

It is commonly assumed that praiseworthiness should form part of the analysis of supererogation. I will argue that this view should be rejected. I will start by arguing that, at least on some views of the connection between moral value and praiseworthiness, it does not follow from the fact that acts of supererogation go beyond what is required by duty that they will always be praiseworthy to perform. I will then consider and dismiss what I will call the Argument from Stipulation in favour of holding that acts of supererogation are always praiseworthy. Next, I will examine what I will call the Necessary Connection Argument, which posits a necessary connection between supererogation and praiseworthiness. I will argue that the intuitions used to motivate this argument are best explained by a debunking explanation

Argument (complex analysis) · Connection (principal bundle) · Duty · Epistemology · Political science · Stipulation · Theology · Value (mathematics) · Free Will and Agency · Law · Mathematics · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access