Article contents
A Plea for the Supererogatory: A Reply
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2009
Abstract
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/624a0/624a027e7aa04fe204f82c5fb15f2daebb9c7d45" alt="Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'"
- Type
- Discussion
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1986
References
1 McGoldrick, Patricia M., ‘Saints and Heroes: A Plea for the Supereroga-tory’,Philosophy 59, No. 230 (October 1984), 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Ibid., 527.
3 Pybus, Elizabeth M., ‘Saints and Heroes’, Philosophy 57, No. 220 (1982), 193–199, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 McGoldrick, ‘Saints and Heroes …’, 524.
5 Pybus, Elizabeth M., ‘False Dichotomies: Right and Good’, Philosophy 58 (1983), 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 McGoldrick, 525.
7 I do not intend to imply a sharp distinction between virtues as, say, techniques, and the ends at which virtuous moral agents aim. For instance, to help others I may need to be benevolent, but I cannot be benevolent unless the good of others is at least sometimes my aim.
8 McGoldrick, 526.
9 Ibid., 527.
10 Ibid., 527.
- 2
- Cited by