Abstract
Is the relation ‘is a morally permissible alternative to’ transitive? The answer seems to be a straightforward yes. If Act B is a morally permissible alternative to Act A and Act C is a morally permissible alternative to B then how could C fail to be a morally permissible alternative to A? However, there are cases where this transitivity appears problematic. My aim in this article is to provide a solution to this problem. I will then investigate two ways in which we might justify rejecting the transitivity of the ‘is a permissible alternative to’ relation. Next, I will look at Dorsey's solution, which involves a reinterpretation of the intuitions used to generate the problem. I will argue that none of these solutions are fully satisfying, before going on to provide a novel solution to the problem and to argue that it avoids the problems facing the alternative solutions.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Philosophy
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. The Cautionary Account of Supererogation;The Philosophical Quarterly;2024-02-16
2. Even More Supererogatory;Australasian Journal of Philosophy;2023-05-10
3. Heroic Supererogation;Encyclopedia of Heroism Studies;2023
4. Supererogation and the Limits of Reasons;Handbook of Supererogation;2023
5. Parity, Moral Options, and the Weights of Reasons;Noûs;2022-04-17