Alexander (Sasha) Arridge

The phenomenology of heroic action seems to be at odds with commonsense morality: while the latter tells us that heroic acts of self-sacrifice are morally optional, heroes reliably believe that such acts are morally required of them. Do heroes systematically exhibit false moral beliefs, or does our commonsense commitment to the possibility of supererogation need revising? This paper argues, contrary to both supererogationists and anti-supererogationists, that we need not decide: as what we are morally required to do depends on how virtuous we are, heroes are right to believe that heroic actions are morally required of them, while ordinary folk morality is right that, for ordinary folk, these very same actions are morally optional. I arrive at this conclusion by supplementing the foremost contemporary account of supererogation with two naturally plausible claims about the virtue of selflessness.

Thomas Schmidt argues that a widely held combination of views about reasons and ought—the Balancing View of Ought and the claim that reasons against Q are reasons for not-Q—is extensionally adequate only if it is complemented by two principles of reasons transmission. In this paper I present three problems for Schmidt’s package of views and two problems for his transmission principles considered in isolation. I then defend a rival package of views—a version of the Balancing View and the claim that reasons against Q are reasons that bear on Q with negative weight—that avoids these problems and secures extensional adequacy without Schmidt’s principles. I conclude that friends of the Balancing View should prefer my package of views.

Ecotage, or the destruction of property for the sake of promoting environmental ends, is beginning to (re)establish itself both as a topic of public discussion and as a radical activist tactic. In response to these developments, a small but growing academic literature questions whether, and if so under what conditions, ecotage can be morally justified. This paper contributes to the literature by arguing that instances of ecotage are pro tanto justified insofar as they are instances of effective and proportionate self- and/or other-defense. Having elucidated and defended its central claim, this paper concludes by briefly considering some other morally relevant features of ecotage that might tell for or against its overall justification in particular cases.