Date: 19 June
Katie Steele, Associate Professor, Australian National University.
It is a feature of our ordinary moral talk that some acts are supererogatory, or beyond what is required. But ‘beyond’ in what sense? Many have recognised a prima facie paradox in trying to square the category of supererogatory with the commitment that the balance of moral reasons determines what morality requires of agents. Here I provide a general account of the popular response to this paradox, which is to acknowledge two (as opposed to one) moral points of view, and associated reasons: one which identifies the permissible versus the impermissible acts and another which identifies the relative moral superiority of the permissible acts. While this general response is illuminating, I go on to argue that it merely pushes the paradox one step back – there is a sense in which we must, in the end, privilege just one moral point of view.
No registration is needed. Welcome to the Institute for Futures Studies, Holländargatan 13 in Stockholm!
Do you wish to get reminders about our research seminars? Subscribe here!