You Ought to be Ashamed of Yourself (When you Violate an Imperfect Moral Obligation)

Philosophical Issues 15 (1):193-208 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The distinction between perfect and imperfect obligations has a long history in moral philosophy and is important to many central issues in moral theory and in everyday morality. Unfortunately, this distinction is often overlooked and rarely defined precisely or univocally. This paper tries to clarify the distinction in light of recent empirical research on guilt and shame. I begin with the general notion of an obligation before distinguishing its sub-classes.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,174

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
133 (#166,310)

6 months
8 (#591,777)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Consequentialism.Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 2019 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
What’s Wrong with Joyguzzling?Ewan Kingston & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 2018 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21 (1):169-186.
Is moral phenomenology unified?Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 2008 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 7 (1):85-97.
Survivor guilt.Jordan MacKenzie & Michael Zhao - 2023 - Philosophical Studies 180 (9):2707-2726.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references