The possibility of acts of supererogation, those that are beyond the call of duty, creates problems for those committed to a tripartite division of the deontic landscape into the obligatory, the forbidden and the neutral. For some, Gregory Mellema for example, expanding our deontic system to include the supererogatory does not go far enough and we must also make room for acts of ‘quasi-supererogation’. Shlomo Cohen has argued that even this is not enough, as we must also make room for acts of ‘Forced Supererogation’. In this reply I will show that Cohen’s defence of this thesis is unsuccessful.
|Number of pages
|Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy
|Published - Mar 2014
- moral philosophy