超级权和反对“总体应该”的案例

IF 0.8 2区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY Pub Date : 2020-04-01 DOI:10.2307/48570847

Elizabeth Ventham

{"title":"超级权和反对“总体应该”的案例","authors":"Elizabeth Ventham","doi":"10.2307/48570847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper argues against a kind of “overall ought.” The main argument is a version of the paradox of supererogation. The problem is this: obligating an agent to do what’s overall best will, when that differs from what’s they morally ought to do, obligate the agent to not do what’s they morally ought to. This, the paper will argue, is implausible. For each of four possible interpretations of this overall ought concept, it will either come across a form of this paradox or no longer look like the targeted “overall ought” concept at all.","PeriodicalId":47459,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SUPEREROGATION AND THE CASE AGAINST AN “OVERALL OUGHT”\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Ventham\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/48570847\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper argues against a kind of “overall ought.” The main argument is a version of the paradox of supererogation. The problem is this: obligating an agent to do what’s overall best will, when that differs from what’s they morally ought to do, obligate the agent to not do what’s they morally ought to. This, the paper will argue, is implausible. For each of four possible interpretations of this overall ought concept, it will either come across a form of this paradox or no longer look like the targeted “overall ought” concept at all.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/48570847\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/48570847","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文反对一种“总体应当”。主要论点是迭代悖论的一个版本。问题是，强制行为人做总体最佳意愿的事，当这与道德上应该做的事不一致时，强制行为人不做道德上应该做的事。这篇论文认为，这是不可信的。对于这个整体应该概念的四种可能解释中的每一种，它要么会遇到这种悖论的一种形式，要么看起来不再像目标的“整体应该”概念。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

SUPEREROGATION AND THE CASE AGAINST AN “OVERALL OUGHT”

This paper argues against a kind of “overall ought.” The main argument is a version of the paradox of supererogation. The problem is this: obligating an agent to do what’s overall best will, when that differs from what’s they morally ought to do, obligate the agent to not do what’s they morally ought to. This, the paper will argue, is implausible. For each of four possible interpretations of this overall ought concept, it will either come across a form of this paradox or no longer look like the targeted “overall ought” concept at all.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Since its inauguration in 1964, the American Philosophical Quarterly (APQ) has established itself as one of the principal English vehicles for the publication of scholarly work in philosophy. The whole of each issue—printed in a large-page, double-column format—is given to substantial articles; from time to time there are also "state of the art" surveys of recent work on particular topics. The editorial policy is to publish work of high quality, regardless of the school of thought from which it derives.