Do We Need to Make Room for Quasi-Supererogation?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

It is commonly held that in addition to the deontic categories of The Forbidden, The Indifferent and The Obligatory we must also make room for The Supererogatory. Some philosophers argue that we must go further and make room for an additional category of Offence or Suberogation. Gregory Mellema has argued that even this does not go far enough and we must also make room for the categories of Quasi-Supererogation and Quasi-Offence. According to Mellema, in the absence of these categories we will be unable to accommodate the possibility of optional acts that are praiseworthy to perform and blameworthy to omit. In this paper I will argue that Mellema’s defence of this claim is unsuccessful. What his arguments instead show is that it can sometimes be blameworthy to omit an act of supererogation and praiseworthy to omit an offence.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)341-351
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Value Inquiry
Volume50
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Jun 2016

Fingerprint

offense
Supererogation
Offence
Philosopher
Deontic

Cite this

@article{b393b333eef24f6c89c5c6876ef74f42,
title = "Do We Need to Make Room for Quasi-Supererogation?",
abstract = "It is commonly held that in addition to the deontic categories of The Forbidden, The Indifferent and The Obligatory we must also make room for The Supererogatory. Some philosophers argue that we must go further and make room for an additional category of Offence or Suberogation. Gregory Mellema has argued that even this does not go far enough and we must also make room for the categories of Quasi-Supererogation and Quasi-Offence. According to Mellema, in the absence of these categories we will be unable to accommodate the possibility of optional acts that are praiseworthy to perform and blameworthy to omit. In this paper I will argue that Mellema’s defence of this claim is unsuccessful. What his arguments instead show is that it can sometimes be blameworthy to omit an act of supererogation and praiseworthy to omit an offence.",
author = "Alfred Archer",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1007/s10790-015-9515-8",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "341--351",
journal = "Journal of Value Inquiry",
issn = "0022-5363",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "2",

}

Do We Need to Make Room for Quasi-Supererogation? / Archer, Alfred.

In: Journal of Value Inquiry, Vol. 50, No. 2, 15.06.2016, p. 341-351.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do We Need to Make Room for Quasi-Supererogation?

AU - Archer, Alfred

PY - 2016/6/15

Y1 - 2016/6/15

N2 - It is commonly held that in addition to the deontic categories of The Forbidden, The Indifferent and The Obligatory we must also make room for The Supererogatory. Some philosophers argue that we must go further and make room for an additional category of Offence or Suberogation. Gregory Mellema has argued that even this does not go far enough and we must also make room for the categories of Quasi-Supererogation and Quasi-Offence. According to Mellema, in the absence of these categories we will be unable to accommodate the possibility of optional acts that are praiseworthy to perform and blameworthy to omit. In this paper I will argue that Mellema’s defence of this claim is unsuccessful. What his arguments instead show is that it can sometimes be blameworthy to omit an act of supererogation and praiseworthy to omit an offence.

AB - It is commonly held that in addition to the deontic categories of The Forbidden, The Indifferent and The Obligatory we must also make room for The Supererogatory. Some philosophers argue that we must go further and make room for an additional category of Offence or Suberogation. Gregory Mellema has argued that even this does not go far enough and we must also make room for the categories of Quasi-Supererogation and Quasi-Offence. According to Mellema, in the absence of these categories we will be unable to accommodate the possibility of optional acts that are praiseworthy to perform and blameworthy to omit. In this paper I will argue that Mellema’s defence of this claim is unsuccessful. What his arguments instead show is that it can sometimes be blameworthy to omit an act of supererogation and praiseworthy to omit an offence.

U2 - 10.1007/s10790-015-9515-8

DO - 10.1007/s10790-015-9515-8

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 341

EP - 351

JO - Journal of Value Inquiry

JF - Journal of Value Inquiry

SN - 0022-5363

IS - 2

ER -