Previous articleNext article No AccessPosition‐Relative Consequentialism, Agent‐Centered Options, and Supererogation*Douglas W. PortmoreDouglas W. Portmore Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 113, Number 2January 2003 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/342859 Views: 221Total views on this site Citations: 31Citations are reported from Crossref © 2003 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Benjamin Lange The ethics of partiality, Philosophy Compass 22 (Jul 2022).https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12860Daniel Muñoz, Theron Pummer Supererogation and conditional obligation, Philosophical Studies 179, no.55 (Sep 2021): 1429–1443.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-021-01724-yMatthew Kotzen Standards and values, Philosophical Issues 31, no.11 (Oct 2021): 167–187.https://doi.org/10.1111/phis.12208Alexander Prescott‐Couch Moral Psychology with Nietzsche, by Brian Leiter. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019, 224 pp., ISBN: 9780199696505, Hardcover $65.00, European Journal of Philosophy 29, no.11 (Mar 2021): 260–265.https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12640Benjamin Lange Other‐Sacrificing Options*, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 101, no.33 (Jul 2019): 612–629.https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12627Claire Benn, Adam Bales The Rationally Supererogatory, Mind 129, no.515515 (Oct 2019): 917–938.https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzz055William MacAskill, Toby Ord Why Maximize Expected Choice‐Worthiness?1, Noûs 54, no.22 (Jul 2018): 327–353.https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12264Yuliya Kanygina DUTIES TO ONESELF AND THIRD-PARTY BLAME, Public Affairs Quarterly 34, no.22 (Apr 2020): 185–203.https://doi.org/10.2307/26921126Elizabeth Ventham SUPEREROGATION AND THE CASE AGAINST AN “OVERALL OUGHT”, American Philosophical Quarterly 57, no.22 (Apr 2020): 181–192.https://doi.org/10.2307/48570847Frederick Schauer On the Alleged Problem of Legal Normativity, (Jun 2019): 171–180.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18929-7_12Claire Benn Supererogation, optionality and cost, Philosophical Studies 175, no.1010 (Aug 2017): 2399–2417.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0965-7Federico Picinali Can the Reasonable Doubt Standard be Justified? A Reconstructed Dialogue, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 31, no.22 (Aug 2018): 365–402.https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2018.17Philip Stratton-Lake Ethical Intuitionism, (Dec 2017): 549–561.https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139519267.043Barry Maguire Love in the Time of Consequentialism, Noûs 51, no.44 (Aug 2016): 686–712.https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12169Ulla Wessels Beyond the Call of Duty: The Structure of a Moral Region, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 77 (Sep 2015): 87–104.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246115000211D.K. Levy Assimilating Supererogation, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 77 (Sep 2015): 227–242.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246115000272Michael Ferry Beyond Obligation: Reasons and Supererogation, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 77 (Sep 2015): 49–65.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246115000284Keith Horton The Authority Account of Prudential Options, The Southern Journal of Philosophy 53, no.11 (Mar 2015): 17–35.https://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12094B. Saunders Is procreative beneficence obligatory?, Journal of Medical Ethics 41, no.22 (Feb 2014): 175–178.https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101711JUSSI SUIKKANEN Consequentialist Options, Utilitas 26, no.33 (Apr 2014): 276–302.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820814000053Michael Ferry Does morality demand our very best? On moral prescriptions and the line of duty, Philosophical Studies 165, no.22 (Jun 2012): 573–589.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9968-6Pilar Aguilar, Silvina Brussino, José-Miguel Fernández-Dols Psychological distance increases uncompromising consequentialism, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49, no.33 (May 2013): 449–452.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.002Thomas E. Hill,, Adam Cureton Supererogation, (Feb 2013).https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee326Eduardo Rivera-López THE MORAL MURDERER. A (MORE) EFFECTIVE COUNTEREXAMPLE TO CONSEQUENTIALISM, Ratio 25, no.33 (Aug 2012): 307–325.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9329.2012.00544.xDouglas W. Portmore Imperfect Reasons and Rational Options, Noûs 46, no.11 (Jan 2011): 24–60.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00780.xJUSTIN WEINBERG IS GOVERNMENT SUPEREROGATION POSSIBLE?, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92, no.22 (May 2011): 263–281.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.2011.01392.xMartin Peterson A Royal Road to Consequentialism?, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13, no.22 (Aug 2009): 153–169.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-009-9198-yJason Kawall Virtue theory, ideal observers, and the supererogatory, Philosophical Studies 146, no.22 (Jul 2008): 179–196.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-008-9250-0Brad Hooker UP AND DOWN WITH AGGREGATION, Social Philosophy and Policy 26, no.11 (Nov 2008): 126–147.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052509090062Douglas W. Portmore Are Moral Reasons Morally Overriding?, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11, no.44 (Mar 2008): 369–388.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-008-9110-1Douglas W. Portmore Dual-ranking act-consequentialism, Philosophical Studies 138, no.33 (Feb 2007): 409–427.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9059-7