Supererogation



According to the [|Merriam-Webster dictionary], supererogation is defined as the act of performing more than is required by duty, obligation or need. The word comes from Medieval Latin //supererogatio,// from //supererogare// to perform beyond the call of duty.

Originating from Roman Catholic traditional beliefs, //supererogare// appears in the Latin version of the New Testament in the parable of the Good Samaritan. [|St Thomas Aquinas] in //Summa Theologica// makes the case for two types of merits for supererogative actions. The first one is to increase one’s chance to achieve everlasting life. The second states that it would be better than simply fulfilling the divine commandments seen as too prescriptive. Unfortunately, certain Roman Catholic leaders overstepped the notion of self-sacrifice and mixed the aspirational notion of performing acts above ones duty with the corruptive religious practices of indulgence commercialization to remit a sinner’s sins. Abuses of supererogation were first used as a cover to recruit soldiers for the crusades, later as a way to finance the dwindling churches coffers, probably the consequence of the said crusades.

As a result, Calvinists and Lutherans fiercely despised supererogation during the [|Reformation] period. An example of this rejection can be found within the [|Scot’s Creed, Chapter 15] - The Perfection of the Law and The Imperfection of Man. John Knox, one of six authors wrote in 1560: “//…Therefore, whoever boasts of the merits of his own works or puts his trust in works of supererogation, boasts of what does not exist, and puts his trust in damnable idolatry.”// Solidly planted in the Divine Command Theory, Knox had the document ratified by the Scottish parliament as "doctrine grounded upon the infallible Word of God.”

It took several centuries for ethical theorists outside of the divine command theory to handle this religiously controversial theme and analyze the concepts surrounding supererogation. J. O. Urmson, an Oxford philosopher (b.1915, d. 2012) wrote the seminal seminal article, “Saints and Heroes” and renewed the interest in analyzing the very existence of the concept of performing acts above the call of duty. Urmson argued that the traditional classification of moral action as described: the obligatory, the permitted and the prohibited were not sufficient. Urmson suggested the addition of a new class of action, referred to as saintly and heroic, and as praiseworthy though non-obligatory. An act is supererogatory if and only if it meets the following three conditions: (1) it's morally optional, (2) it's morally praiseworthy, and (3) it goes above the call of duty. Can there be actions that are morally good, but not morally required? If there are such actions, how can they not be required of individuals? According to the [|Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy], the last fifty years witnessed a heated philosophical discussion around the nature of duty and its limits, the relationship between duty and value, the role of ideals in ethical judgment, action and virtue.

According to the mixed deontological theory of W.D. Ross, the principle of beneficence, which requires promoting the good of others in our actions, is only one of many ultimate principles determining our moral duties and obligations.

According to Utilitarianism, individuals seek to maximize happiness for the maximum number of people. Therefore, one should feel like helping another fellow human beings if it achieves better living conditions, but what is the axiology of such actions? How would would Utilitarianism explain doing acts that are not required as long a utility is maximized?

In conclusion, even though ethical theorists agree with the existence of supererogatory acts, the ways in which to analyze such acts are controversial. If we accept Hobbes social contract theory, are we obligated to go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that we avoid the “state of nature?” Kant rejected consequentialism as a source of moral action, suggesting rather that reason is the basis for morality. Kant theory is limited in understanding supererogation as it would not explain why individual would choose to avoid additional moral action requiring a much higher ethical standard, performing limited altruism instead. If [|Aristotle] was right, acting virtuous is its own reward, but it is acquired through training. Keeping an active ethical academic debate on the context, nature and value of supererogation allows us for a much healthier set of ethical assumptions and continued learning.