Abstract
Professor McGoldrick submits a plea for the supererogatory, in reply to my defence of the traditional tripartite classification of actions as obligatory, permissible, or wrong.' There are two arguments in her paper with which I should like to take issue. First, she attacks my argument for the view that, if the pursuit of an ideal is morally praiseworthy, then the development of the requisite virtue(s) is morally obligatory, on the grounds that it involves apetitioprincipii. Second, she argues that since we must (morally) have self-respect, 'heroic or saintly virtues ... cannot be demanded, of ourselves or others, as an imperative of duty without abrogating the intrinsic worth of the individual upon whom the imperative is laid'.2 I think it is possible for me to maintain my position against these two attacks.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
