Cover of The Journal of Philosophy
Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-4 of 4 documents


1. The Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 120 > Issue: 5
Linda Eggert Supererogatory Rescues
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Recent debates about supererogatory rescues have sought to explain how it can be wrong to perform a suboptimal rescue although it would be permissible not to rescue at all. This paper proposes a new solution to this puzzle. It argues that existing accounts have neglected two critical considerations. First, contrary to what is commonly assumed, a rescue’s supererogatory nature has no bearing on the duties that apply to agents who rescue in supererogatory fashion. Second, we cannot justify harms caused as a side effect of supererogatory rescues by appealing to the fact that it would have been permissible not to rescue at all. Ultimately, the paper proposes, the same duties that apply in cases in which rescuing is required also apply in cases in which rescuing is supererogatory. A rescue’s supererogatory nature, it turns out, is not the game changer we thought it was.
2. The Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 120 > Issue: 5
Wai-Hung Wong McTaggart's Overlooked Second Construction of the Argument against the Reality of Time in the A-Series
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
McTaggart’s argument for the unreality of time was first published in the 1908 article “The Unreality of Time,” and a revised version appeared in the 1927 book The Nature of Existence. I argue that these two versions are significantly different. The second construction of the argument is important because it neutralizes a compelling objection. McTaggart’s initial argument tries to show that the conception of an A-series is self-contradictory. A natural objection is that the apparent contradiction can be resolved by making clear that an event has incompatible A-properties only successively. McTaggart anticipates and responds to the objection. My main contention is this: McTaggart’s initial response to the objection fails, but in the second construction of his argument he succeeds in showing that the contradiction cannot be resolved in the way suggested by the objection. I also explain why the second construction has been overlooked for so long.
3. The Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 120 > Issue: 5
New Books: Translations
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
4. The Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 120 > Issue: 5
Call for Submissions: The Isaac Levi Prize
view |  rights & permissions | cited by