Evil and moral detachment: further reflections on The Mirror Thesis

Archer, Alfred

doi:10.1080/09672559.2015.1126340

International Journal of Philosophical Studies

2016

DOI: 10.1080/09672559.2015.1126340

|View full text |Cite

Evil and moral detachment: further reflections on The Mirror Thesis

Alfred Archer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2016

2023

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite1

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Vice-based accounts of moral evil

Wilson

2023

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I highlight three objections to vice-based accounts of moral evil: (1) the worry that vice-based accounts of evil are explanatorily inadequate; (2) the worry that even extreme vice is not sufficient for evil; and (3) the worry that not all vices are inversions of virtue (and so vice-based accounts will struggle to explain the “mirror thesis”). I argue that it is possible to respond to these objections by developing a vice-based account of evil that draws on insights from virtue (and vice) epistemology. In this way, I seek to defend the strategy of understanding evil in terms of vice, and to provide guidance on how best to develop such an account. I also briefly consider what vice-based accounts of moral evil might imply about evil in other normative domains where it is common to talk of virtue and vice, including the possibilities of epistemic evil and aesthetic evil.

show abstract

Vice-based accounts of moral evil

Wilson

2023

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Supererogation, Sacrifice, and the Limits of Duty

Archer¹

2016

The Southern J of Philosophy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is often claimed that all acts of supererogation involve sacrifice. This claim is made because it is thought that it is the level of sacrifice involved that prevents these acts from being morally required. In this paper, I will argue against this claim. I will start by making a distinction between two ways of understanding the claim that all acts of supererogation involve sacrifice. I will then examine some purported counterexamples to the view that supererogation always involves sacrifice and examine their limitation. Next, I will examine how this view might be defended, building on comments by Dale Dorsey and Henry Sidgwick. I will then argue that the view and the argument in favor of it should be rejected. I will finish by showing how an alternative explanation for the limits of moral obligation avoids the problems facing The Sacrifice View.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Evil and moral detachment: further reflections on The Mirror Thesis

Cited by 2 publications

References 21 publications

Vice-based accounts of moral evil

Vice-based accounts of moral evil

Supererogation, Sacrifice, and the Limits of Duty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About