Introduction: The agents, acts and attitudes of supererogation

Abstract

I confess to finding the term ‘supererogation’ ugly and unpronounceable. I am also generally suspicious of technical terms in moral philosophy, since they are vulnerable to self-serving definition and counter-definition, to the point of obscuring whether there is a single phenomenon about which to disagree. It was surely not accidental that J.O. Urmson, in his classic 1958 article that launched the contemporary Anglophone debate, eschewed the technical term in favour of the more familiar concepts of saints and heroes. Since then, however, the term Supererogation has bedded down to encompass a number of more or less clear-cut philosophical debates, one of which concerns precisely the extent to which saintliness and heroism exhaust the supererogatory. And it has to be admitted that the word ‘saint’ has certain theological connotations that might be misleading in a secular philosophical discussion (in this volume, only Wynn and Drummond-Young invoke theological ideas), while the word ‘hero’ has potentially limiting associations with knights and soldiers and other forms of testosterone-driven accomplishment.

Are Acts of Supererogation Always Praiseworthy?

“…The view is endorsed by Horgan and Timmons (, p. 32), Jacobs (, p. 97), Mellema (, p. 17), Montague (, p. 102), Peterfreund (, p. 54) and Raz (, p. 164). The prevalence of this view in the literature on supererogation is also pointed out by Cowley (, p. 2).…”