How can it be that some acts of very high moral value are not morally required? This is the problem of supererogation. I do not argue in favor of a particular answer. Instead, I analyze two opposing moral intuitions the problem involves. First, that one should always do one’s best. Second, that sometimes we are morally allowed not to do our best. To think that one always has to do one’s best is less plausible, as it makes every morally best (...) act obligatory. I argue that, despite its implausibility, this is the main ingredient in a traditional outlook I call ‘morality of law,’ which conceives of morality as impartial, impersonal, rule-based and obligation-based. My main point is that supererogation will always be seen as problematic if the background theory is a morality of law. This is because supererogation encapsulates a view of morality-outside-obligation, whereas morality of law centers upon obligation as its main instrument of curbing a supposedly natural human selfishness. (shrink)

Frege’s famous definition of number famously uses the concept of “extension”. Extensions, in the Fregean framework, are susceptible to bringing many difficulties, and, some say, even paradoxes. Therefore, neo-logicist programs want to avoid the problems and to replace the classical Fregean definition of number with Hume’s Principle. I argue that this move, even if it makes sense from a computational point of view, is at odds with Frege’s larger philosophical project. For Frege, I claim, extensions were an important part of (...) his philosophical program of logic-as-an-universal-language. This is why Frege places his project in line with Leibniz’ philosophical project of finding a lingua characterica universalis. (shrink)

Kant's claim that arithmetical truths are synthetic is famously contradicted by Frege, who considers them to be analytical. It may seem that this is a mere dispute about linguistic labels, since both Kant and Frege agree that arithmetical truths are a priori and informative, and, therefore, it is only a matter of how one chooses to call them. I argue that the choice between calling arithmetic “synthetic” or “analytic” has a deeper significance. I claim that the dispute is not a (...) merely linguistic one, but one involving the status of arithmetic as a science. Namely, it is a dispute about what truths are appropriate to use in grounding a scientific discipline. I interpret Frege's critique of Kant as being mainly about the lack of distinction between the context of justification and the context of discovery. (shrink)