Abstract
It has recently been argued that virtue ethics cannot accommodate the possibility of supererogation. In response, Rebecca Stangl proposes a neo-Aristotelian account of supererogation that, she argues, generates plausible verdicts, while also being compatible with the doctrine of the mean. I argue that Stangl’s response is unsuccessful. First, I demonstrate that the proposal in its current form is problematically indeterminate, meaning that we cannot know what verdicts would be produced in response to classic examples. Second, I argue that anyone attempting to develop the account faces a dilemma, and that both options for responding to this dilemma generate problematic results.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 199-211 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | Ethics |
| Volume | 128 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 22 Sept 2017 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 1 Oct 2017 |