Do We Owe the Past a Future: Reply to Finneron-Burns


According to the Unfinished Business Account, if actor p reasonably judges performing a supererogatory act ϕ at great sacrifice to herself will enable beneficiary q to achieve a greater good, then failure to promote the good made possible by ϕ wrongs p. Elizabeth Finneron-Burns questions whether it follows that we have a duty to render the sacrifices of past (and present) people more worthwhile by preventing human extinction. This note responds to her criticisms.



External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

(Really) defending exclusionary reasons.Ezequiel Monti - 2024 - Jurisprudence 15 (1):48-70.
Thanks for being, loving, and believing.Tony Manela - 2021 - Philosophical Studies 179 (5):1649-1672.
Reasons for Action and Psychological Capacities.Rosemary Lowry - 2012 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (4):521 - 531.
The Special Ability View of knowledge-how.Peter J. Markie - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (12):3191-3209.
Business ethics and doing what one ought to do.Gregory Mellema - 1994 - Journal of Business Ethics 13 (2):149 - 153.
Subjectivism without Desire.Dale Dorsey - 2012 - Philosophical Review 121 (3):407-442.
On keeping blue swans and unknowable facts at bay : a case study on Fitch's paradox.Berit Brogaard - 2008 - In Joe Salerno (ed.), New Essays on the Knowability Paradox. Oxford, England and New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.


Added to PP

231 (#91,814)

6 months
87 (#67,899)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Patrick Kaczmarek
Cambridge University
Simon Beard
Cambridge University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references