Extensions and Variations of the DWE Framework with Applications

Building on McNamara’s DWE (Doing Well Enough) framework, a sub- stantial generalization and refinement of that framework extends its expressive resources by adding two ordering operators, changing the underlying semantic ordering’s scope, and adding a number of other operators making fuller use of the resulting expanded frames. A solution to DWE’s “Disjunctive Supereroga- tion Problem” is provided via two semantic characterizations of permissible su- pererogation stronger than that of DWE’s. The new framework also allows us to represent a divide in normative ethical theory between classical deontologists and consequentialists by, among other things, allowing for models distinguish- ing what is best to do from what one ought to do and from what one must do. It also allows for modeling supererogatory hole scenarios (Ulla Wessells) and consequently, for modeling the more recent and much-discussed all or nothing problem scenarios (Joe Horton). We use the enriched resources to explore care- fully modeling these problem cases, bringing greater resources to bear on the cases, as well as indicating some potential challenges with some positions taken on the problems. It also becomes clear that the classical deontological conflicts with consequentialism are close cousins to the just-mentioned problems with su- pererogation; each involves a growing divide in normative ethics over whether something as good as something permissible must be permissible. It is also made emphatically clear just how much impact it has if endorsed. In this paper, our focus will be on the semantic framework and its expressive power.

Authors

• Paul McNamara

Keywords

• DWE
• supererogation
• must
• ought
• the least one can do
• supererogatory holes
• all or nothing cases
• deontology
• consequentialism