Moral Obligation, Self-Interest and The Transitivity Problem

Utilitas 28 (4):441-464 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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, as both Dale Dorsey and Frances Kamm point out, there are cases where this transitivity appears problematic. My aim in this paper is to provide a solution to this problem. I will then investigate Kamm’s justification for 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 neither of these solutions are fully satisfying before going on to provide my own solution to the problem and arguing that it avoids these problems.
Categories
Reprint years
2016
PhilPapers/Archive ID
ARCMOS
Upload history
First archival date: 2016-02-12
Latest version: 2 (2016-02-16)
View other versions
Added to PP index
2016-02-12

Total views
492 ( #10,085 of 56,044 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
94 ( #6,624 of 56,044 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.