Abstract
Only few philosophers are fortunate enough to start single-handedly a new topic in philosophy. The Oxford philosopher J. O. Urmson is one of them. But at the time he wrote his seminal article, ‘Saints and Heroes’ (1958), he was certainly not aware of it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Urmson’s self-critique appears in an apropos manner in an article on R. M. Hare. He does not deny the existence of saintly and heroic acts but warns against the use of the concept of the supererogatory as a blanket term under which all actions (like small favors or considerateness) are included. In the original article Urmson explicitly includes acts of “kindness and generosity” as going beyond duty. As this collection attests, Urmson’s warning has been mostly ignored and the discussion of the “blanket term of supererogation” is flourishing.
- 2.
The editor wishes to express his gratitude to the University of Washington Press (Seattle) for granting the permission to reproduce Urmson’s article originally published in Essays on Moral Philosophy (ed. A. I. Melden), 1958, pp. 198–216.
- 3.
When no date of publication is given, the reference in this introduction is to an article included in this volume. When dates are noted, the reference is to the bibliography of this introduction.
References
Benbaji, H., & Heyd, D. (2003). The charitable perspective: Forgiveness and toleration as supererogatory. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 31, 567–586.
Chisholm, R. (1963). Supererogation and offence: A conceptual scheme for ethics. Ratio, 5, 1–14.
Crisp, R. (2013). Supererogation and virtue. In Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics (vol. 3), M. Timmons (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Derrida, J. (1992). Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money (trans. Peggy Kamuf), University of Chicago Press.
Dorsey, D. (2013). The supererogatory, and how to accommodate it. Utilitas, 25, 355–382.
Heyd, D. (1982). Supererogation: Its status in ethical theory. Cambridge University Press.
Kawall, J. (2009). Virtue theory, ideal observers, and the supererogatory. Philosophical Studies, 146, 179–196.
Parfit, D. (1982). Future generations: Further problems. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 11, 131.
Portmore, D. (2003). Position-relative consequentialism, agent-centered options, and supererogation. Ethics, 113, 303–332.
Postow, B. C. (2005). Supererogation again. Journal of Value Inquiry, 39, 245–253.
Raz, J. (1975). Permissions and supererogation. American Philosophical Quarterly, 12, 161–168.
Stangl, R. (2016). Neo-aristotelian supererogation. Ethics, 126, 339–365.
Urmson, J. O. (1988). Hare on intuitive moral thinking. In Hare and Critics, D. Seanor, & N. Fotion (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Heyd, D. (2023). Introduction. In: Heyd, D. (eds) Handbook of Supererogation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3633-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3633-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-3632-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-3633-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)