Supererogation, Sacrifice, and the Limits of Duty

Southern Journal of Philosophy 54 (3):333-354 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
It is often claimed that all acts of supererogation involve sacrifice. This claim is made because it is thought that it is the level of sacrifice involved that prevents these acts from being morally required. In this paper, I will argue against this claim. I will start by making a distinction between two ways of understanding the claim that all acts of supererogation involve sacrifice. I will then examine some purported counterexamples to the view that supererogation always involves sacrifice and examine their limitations. Next, I will examine how this view might be defended, building on comments by Dale Dorsey and Henry Sidgwick. I will then argue that the view and the argument in favor of it should be rejected. I will finish by showing how an alternative explanation for the limits of moral obligation avoids the problems facing The Sacrifice View.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
ARCSSA-2
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-01-23
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
What We Owe to Each Other.Scanlon, Thomas M.

View all 43 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Supererogation.Archer, Alfred

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2016-01-23

Total views
419 ( #8,201 of 44,304 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
122 ( #3,899 of 44,304 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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