@sarahdoingthing Supererogation is important and deserves more attention I think.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@sarahdoingthing I realized only recently that utilitarianism does not allow supererogation; everything not compulsory is forbidden.4 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@sarahdoingthing Universalized/monistic utilitarianism, yes.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@sarahdoingthing What’s the other leading brand?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@sarahdoingthing That's the only brand you hear about, bc Kant and similar garbage.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@Meaningness@sarahdoingthing But ISTM (w/o long deep consideration) that in a context of multiple utilitarian agents w/ bounded rationality1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@Meaningness@sarahdoingthing ...that "supererogation" fits into the picture under the heading of lexicographic utility.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@Meaningness@sarahdoingthing I may be missing context bc Jim taboo1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@St_Rev And, you should not congratulate yourself for supererogatory works, especially not in invidious comparison, i.e. SJWism.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@St_Rev It’s pretty clear the text he cites doesn’t say anything like that, but I agree with the point. Otherwise, no ethical freedom.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.