Abstract
AbstractDiscussions of supererogation usually focus on cases in which the agent can choose among a finite number of options. However, Daniel Muñoz has recently shown that cases in which the agent faces an infinite chain of increasingly less good options make trouble for existing definitions of supererogation. Muñoz proposes a promising new definition as a solution to the problem of infinite cases. I argue that any acceptable account of supererogation must (1) enable us to accurately identify supererogatory acts in both finite and infinite option cases. It must also (2) include a suitably related account of what makes one act more supererogatory than another for finite, infinite, single-choice (one agent choosing among several supererogatory options) and inter-choice (two different agents, each choosing a supererogatory option) cases. I further argue that the best current account of supererogation for finite cases works well for finite cases, but cannot handle infinite cases. However, Muñoz’s proposal cannot handle inter-choice cases in either finite or infinite cases. I conclude we still need an account for infinite cases, and may have to settle for separate definitions of supererogation for finite and infinite cases.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference12 articles.
1. Hurka, T., & Evangeline, T. (2021). More supererogatory. In J. McMahan, T. Campbell, J. Goodrich, & K. Ramakrishnan (Eds.), Principles and persons: The legacy of derek parfit (pp. 463–77). Oxford University Press.
2. Little, M., & MacNamara, C. (2017). For better or worse: Commendatory reasons and latitude. In M. Timmons (Ed.), Oxford studies in normative ethics (7 vol., pp. 138–160). Oxford University Press.
3. MacAskill, W., Cotton-Barratt, O., & Ord, T. (2020). Statistical normalization methods in interpersonal and intertheoretic comparisons. Journal of Philosophy, 117, 61–95.
4. McNamara, P. (1996). Making room for going beyond the call. Mind, 105, 415–450.
5. McNamara, P. (2011). Praise, Blame, Obligation, and DWE: Toward a framework for classical supererogation and kin. Journal of Applied Logic, 9, 153–170.