Must We Be Perfect?: A Case Against Supererogation

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In this paper we offer an argument against supererogation and in favour of moral perfectionism. We argue three primary points: 1) That the putative moral category is not generated by any of the main normative ethical systems, and it is difficult to find space for it in these systems at all; 2) That the primary support for supererogation is based on intuitions, which can be undercut by various other pieces of evidence; and 3) That there are better reasons to favour perfectionism, including competing intuitions about the good-ought tie-up, and the epistemic preference for theoretical simplicity.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-03-13
View other versions
Added to PP

584 (#12,968)

6 months
127 (#4,648)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?