In this classic paper in the literature on the idea of supererogation (acts above and beyond moral duty), Urmson argues for recognition of a special class of moral acts that, while clearly moral, cannot be required—at least not generally. In the course of his argument, he makes explicit a masculine assumption about the feminine relation to morality. Susan Wolf reacts to this paper. Together, Urmson’s seemingly off-handed remark and Wolf’s response, are symptomatic of the deep rift in moral perspective between women and men. The underlying clash of principles were first clearly examined by Otto Weininger a century ago. Luno picks up where Weininger left off, using Urmson and Wolf as philosophical occasions.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Sep | Jan » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
- Information
- Sortals
- aesthetics
- Agacinski
- animals
- anti-Semitism
- aristotle
- Criminality
- cynicism
- de Beauvoir
- epistemology
- Freud
- General
- Heterocosmos
- Hobbes
- Hume
- interviews
- Kant
- Lispector
- Locke
- logic
- Marx
- Mill, H. T.
- Mill, J. S.
- Moral Consciousness
- moral education
- Moral Theory
- News
- Nietzsche
- philosophical hatred
- philosophical method
- philosophy and sex
- political philosophy
- religion
- suicide
- Weininger
- Wittgenstein
-
Search
- Meta
