Position-relative consequentialism, agent-centered options, and supererogation

Abstract

I argue that a version of maximizing act-consequentialism can accommodate both agent-centered options and supererogatory acts. Specifically, I argue that position-relative consequentialism–the theory that holds that agents ought always to act so as to bring about what is, from their own individual positions, the best available state of affairs–can account for the fact that agents have a moral option whenever the state of affairs in which the agent safeguards her own interests is, from her position, all-things-considered better but morally worse than the state of affairs in which she sacrifices these interests for the sake of others.