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
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-01-23
View other versions
Added to PP index
2016-01-23

Total views
578 ( #7,424 of 53,490 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
78 ( #7,106 of 53,490 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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