Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

Ethics: Questions & Morality of Human Actions, 3rd Edition

Supererogation

by Gregory F. Mellema

Definition: Doing what is morally praiseworthy beyond what is required by duty or what is required to be free of moral blame

Type of ethics: Theory of ethics

Significance: If supererogation is possible, then moral goodness is not exhaustively describable as the fulfillment of moral duty; it is possible to go above and beyond the call of duty.

The term “supererogation” derives from the Latin verb supererogare, which means “to overspend” or “to spend in addition.” The first known appearance of this verb is in the Latin Vulgate biblical account of the Good Samaritan (the tenth chapter of the Book of Luke). The modern notion of supererogation is based upon the idea of making an expenditure of one’s goods or energy over and above what is required of one by moral duty. More precisely, the modern notion requires that an act satisfy three conditions to qualify as an act of supererogation. First, the performance of the act must be morally praiseworthy.

Second, the performance of the act must not fulfill moral duty. Third, the omission of the act must not be morally blameworthy.

Although the idea of rising above and beyond the call of duty is familiar to most people, there has for centuries been great opposition to this idea. The major figures of the Protestant Reformation associated the idea of supererogation with the detested practice in the Roman Catholic Church of selling indulgences, which was based upon the idea that the good actions of the saints create a treasury of merit. The Protestants Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Philipp Melanchthon taught, on the contrary, that God requires all people to do what is good or praiseworthy; hence, it is impossible to do good over and above the requirements of duty. No matter how saintly or heroic one’s behavior is, even to the point of sacrificing one’s life, one is simply doing what God requires as a matter of duty.

The Protestant Reformers were also bitterly opposed to the Scholastic distinction between the commandments of God and the counsels of God. According to Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastics, the commandments of God are obligatory to obey, but the counsels of God are optional recommendations.

Although Christians are not required to obey the counsels of God, such as renouncing riches and carnal pleasures, following them is recommended to those who wish to lead more perfect lives. Clearly, this distinction opens the door to the possibility of supererogation, and the Reformers refused to acknowledge that there are any counsels of God apart from what God demands as obligatory. If it is good to renounce wealth or carnal pleasure, that is exactly what one is required to do.

Opposition to the idea that supererogation is possible has more recently come from two of the major modern traditions in ethics: Kantian ethics and act utilitarianism. According to Kantian ethics, an act can be a moral act only if it is performed in obedience to moral duty. Thus, if an act is performed that goes beyond the requirements of duty, Kantians dismiss it as an act that falls outside the sphere of ethics or morality.

One cannot, according to their view, act morally in a way that transcends duty.

Act Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism is based roughly upon the idea that persons ought at a given time to perform whatever act produces the greatest benefits for the greatest number of persons. In this view, duty requires one to choose the alternative that maximizes benefits. If a person chooses this alternative and acts accordingly, the person has fulfilled his or her duty. If the person chooses another alternative and acts accordingly, the person has violated his or her duty. In both cases, however there is no possibility of doing what is praiseworthy without fulfilling duty. Either one’s act fulfills duty or it does not, but if it does not fulfill duty, it is the violation of duty and hence cannot be praiseworthy.

In spite of all the opposition to the idea that acts of supererogation are possible in human life, there is also much support for the idea. An article by J. O.

Urmson entitled “Saints and Heroes,” published in 1958, has been particularly significant in restoring popularity to the notion of supererogation. Urmson, a philosophical ethicist, presents several persuasive arguments to show that saintly and heroic behavior cannot plausibly be regarded as the fulfillment of duty. In one example, Urmson describes a soldier who throws himself upon a live grenade to save the lives of his comrades. Surely it would be wrong to judge that the soldier has a duty to perform this act, and surely it would be wrong to blame him for deciding not to perform it. Yet it is clearly a morally praiseworthy act, and hence it qualifies as an act of supererogation.

Urmson admits that saints and heroes often regard their own behavior as the fulfillment of duty. People frequently reply that they were only doing their duty when congratulated for performing acts of saintliness or heroism, and this is a phenomenon that has led many people to conclude that there really are no acts of supererogation in human life. Urmson argues, however, that people who react to their own saintly or heroic acts in this manner are simply mistaken. They have subjected themselves to a standard of duty that is unrealistically rigorous, and they have in reality gone beyond the call of duty.

David Heyd has argued that, in addition to heroism and saintliness, there are five other categories of acts that are capable of qualifying as supererogatory.

First, there are acts of beneficence, such as acts of charity, generosity, and gift giving; second, doing favors for others; third, volunteering or promising something; fourth, forbearing to do what is within one’s rights; and fifth, forgiving, pardoning, and showing mercy. In each of these categories there is room for performing acts of supererogation.

Although acts of supererogation are almost always portrayed in dramatic fashion, it is important to realize that small acts of generosity, courtesy, or kindness can satisfy the three conditions required of being supererogatory. Thus, it can be supererogatory to buy lunch for a coworker who has arrived at work without any money, to put in a good word about someone else to a person in authority, or to offer to cover the office phone while everyone else is downstairs at the office Christmas party.

Further Reading

1 

Attfield, Robin. A Theory of Value and Obligation. New York: Croom Helm, 1987.

2 

Heyd, David. Supererogation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

3 

May, Todd. The Moral Theory of Poststructuralism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1995.

4 

Mellema, Gregory. Beyond the Call of Duty: Supererogation, Obligation, and Offense. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991.

5 

Urmson, J. O. “Saints and Heroes.” In Moral Concepts, edited by Joel Feinberg. London: Oxford University Press, 1969.

6 

Zimmerman, Michael J. The Concept of Moral Obligation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Citation Types

Type
Format
MLA 9th
Mellema, Gregory F. "Supererogation." Ethics: Questions & Morality of Human Actions, 3rd Edition, edited by George Lucas & John K. Roth, Salem Press, 2019. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=Ethics_0156.
APA 7th
Mellema, G. F. (2019). Supererogation. In G. Lucas & J. K. Roth (Eds.), Ethics: Questions & Morality of Human Actions, 3rd Edition. Salem Press. online.salempress.com.
CMOS 17th
Mellema, Gregory F. "Supererogation." Edited by George Lucas & John K. Roth. Ethics: Questions & Morality of Human Actions, 3rd Edition. Hackensack: Salem Press, 2019. Accessed October 22, 2025. online.salempress.com.