Are Acts of Supererogation Always Praiseworthy?

Archer, Alfred

doi:10.1111/theo.12085

Cited by 25 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What about judgments of moral rightness, goodness, or praiseworthiness as these relate to actions which strengthen one or more of the functions 61 ? Will people be judged positively for “merely” meeting functional expectations, as when a parent-child relationship fulfills the care function, or will such judgments be reserved for so-called supererogatory behaviors, going above and beyond the call of duty 62 ? Either way, we expect that praiseworthiness judgments for a given action will depend, among other things, on the relational context (functionally understood).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How social relationships shape moral wrongness judgments

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judgments of whether an action is morally wrong depend on who is involved and the nature of their relationship. But how, when, and why social relationships shape moral judgments is not well understood. We provide evidence to address these questions, measuring cooperative expectations and moral wrongness judgments in the context of common social relationships such as romantic partners, housemates, and siblings. In a pre-registered study of 423 U.S. participants nationally representative for age, race, and gender, we show that people normatively expect different relationships to serve cooperative functions of care, hierarchy, reciprocity, and mating to varying degrees. In a second pre-registered study of 1,320 U.S. participants, these relationship-specific cooperative expectations (i.e., relational norms) enable highly precise out-of-sample predictions about the perceived moral wrongness of actions in the context of particular relationships. In this work, we show that this ‘relational norms’ model better predicts patterns of moral wrongness judgments across relationships than alternative models based on genetic relatedness, social closeness, or interdependence, demonstrating how the perceived morality of actions depends not only on the actions themselves, but also on the relational context in which those actions occur.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How social relationships shape moral wrongness judgments

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If an act is performed to obviate negative repercussions, or is performed for personal glory, then that act could not be considered supererogatory even if the act itself was meritorious (Benn, 2018 ; Horgan & Timmons, 2010 ). Whether the performance of a supererogatory or otherwise virtuous act is indicative of the moral compass of the performing individual remains a moot point (Archer & Ridge, 2015 ; Archer, 2016a , b ; Levy, 2015 ).…”

Section: Supererogationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring and Expanding Supererogatory Acts: Beyond Duty for a Sustainable Future

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supererogation has gained attention as a means of explaining the voluntary behaviours of individuals and organizations that are done for the benefit of others and which go above what is required of legislation and what may be expected by society. Whilst the emerging literature has made some significant headway in exploring supererogation as an ethical lens for the study of business there remain several important issues that require attention. These comprise, the lack of primary evidence upon which such examinations have been made, attention has been given to only singular pro-social acts of organizations, and the focus has been upon the actions of large organizations. Furthermore, Heyd’s (Supererogation, Cambridge University Press, 1982) original taxonomy of six supererogatory acts, comprising Moral Heroism, Beneficence, Volunteering, Favour, Forgiveness and Forbearance, has been considered to be complete and other forms of supererogatory acts have not yet been explored. In order to address these gaps this study poses the research questions: First, it studies how a single, contemporary SME performs multiple supererogatory acts in its attempts to address its social and environmental goals that go beyond CSR. Second, it seeks to gain a deeper theoretical understanding of Heyd’s (Supererogation, Cambridge University Press, 1982) taxonomy of six forms of supererogation through the capture of primary data. This research makes a three-year case study examination of a single SME that has been formally recognized for its work in addressing social and environmental issues at local, national and global levels. Primary data are acquired of the supererogatory acts that it performs through a three-year participant observation case study, utilizing 61 interviews and 3 focus groups with internal and external stakeholders. In doing so, it addresses the empirical limitations of the extant research, substantiates each of the forms that supererogatory acts may take, and makes a contribution to the theory of supererogation by identifying a further class of act that is ‘Sharing’.

show abstract

“…Often, praiseworthiness is claimed to be a necessary condition of supererogation (McNamara, 2011) and even those who deny this accept that supererogatory acts are typically praiseworthy (Archer, 2016). Given this, it is perfectly appropriate to encourage others to perform these acts with praise.…”

Section: Perfect and Imperfect Duties And Supererogationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nudging Charitable Giving: What (If Anything) Is Wrong With It?

Ruehle

Engelen

Archer

2020

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nudging techniques can help charities to increase donations. In this article, we first provide a systematic overview of prototypical nudges that promote charitable giving. Second, we argue that plenty of the ethical objections raised against nudges, such as the exploitation of power they involve and the arguably intrusive and deceptive nature, are not specific to nudging itself. Carefully designing nudges can help to avoid these worries. Third, given that most concerns boil down to the worry that nudges infringe on people’s autonomy, we analyze when this could nevertheless be justified. We differentiate between perfect duties, imperfect duties, and supererogatory acts and argue that nudges are (a) morally permissible (even when they violate autonomy) when it comes to perfect duties and can (b) provide the best available strategy when it comes to imperfect duties. That said, we also analyze the conditions under which nudging charitable giving is impermissible.

show abstract

Are Acts of Supererogation Always Praiseworthy?

Cited by 25 publications

References 36 publications

How social relationships shape moral wrongness judgments

How social relationships shape moral wrongness judgments

Exploring and Expanding Supererogatory Acts: Beyond Duty for a Sustainable Future

Nudging Charitable Giving: What (If Anything) Is Wrong With It?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About