Advertisement

Philosophia

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 447–462 | Cite as

Supererogation and Intentions of the Agent

  • Alfred ArcherEmail author
Article

Abstract

It has been claimed, by David Heyd, that in order for an act to count as supererogatory the agent performing the act must possess altruistic intentions (1982 p.115). This requirement, Heyd claims, allows us to make sense of the meritorious nature of acts of supererogation. In this paper I will investigate whether there is good reason to accept that this requirement is a necessary condition of supererogation. I will argue that such a reason can be found in cases where two people act in the same way but with only the person who acted with altruistic intent counting as having performed an act of supererogation. In such cases Heyd’s intention requirement plays an important role in ruling out acts that intuitively are not supererogatory. Despite this, I will argue that we should reject Heyd’s requirement and replace it with a moral intention requirement. I will then investigate how to formulate this requirement and respond to two objections that might be raised against it.

Keywords

Supererogation Normative Ethics Motivation Intention 

References

  1. Anscombe, G. E. (2000). Intention. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arpaly, N. (2003). Unprincipled Virtue: An Inquiry Into Moral Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, J. (1974). The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn. Philosophy, 49(188), 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferry, M. (2012) Does Morality Demand Our Very Best? Moral Prescriptions and the Line of Duty. In Philosophical Studies. doi: 10.1007/s11098-012-9968-6
  5. Graham, P. (2010). In defense of objectivism about moral obligation. Ethics, 121, 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grice, P. (1991). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hale, S. (1991). Against supererogation. American Philosophical Quarterly, 28(4), 273–285.Google Scholar
  8. Heyd, D. (1982). Supererogation: Its Status in Ethical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Horgan, T., & Timmons, M. (2010). Untying a knot from the inside out: reflections on the ‘Paradox’ of supererogation. Social Philosophy and Policy, 27, 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacobs, R. A. (1985). Obligation, supererogation and self-sacrifice. Philosophy, 62, 96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (trans: Ellington, J.W). Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Kawall, J. (2003). Self-regarding supererogatory acts. Journal of Social Philosophy, 34(3), 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McGoldrick, P. M. (1984). Saints and heroes: a plea for the supererogatory. Philosophy, 59, 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McNamara, P. (2011). Supererogation, Inside and Out: Toward an Adequate Scheme for Common-Sense Morality. In Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Mellema, G. (1991). Beyond the Call of Duty: Supererogation, Obligation and Offence. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mill, J. S. (2001) Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Montague, P. (1989). Acts, agents and supererogation. American Philosophical Quarterly, 26(2), 100–111.Google Scholar
  18. Peterfreund, S. (1978) On the relationship between supererogation and basic duty. In The Personalist, 59(1), 53–57.Google Scholar
  19. Ridge, M. (2002). Mill’s Intentions and motives. Utilitas, 14(1), 54–70.Google Scholar
  20. Ross, W. D. (2003). The Right and the Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe To Each Other. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, H. M. (2010). Subjective rightness. Social Philosophy and Policy, 27(2), 64–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strawson, P. F. (1968). Freedom and Resentment. In Studies in the Philosophy of Thought and Action. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. The Wave. Pheffer Honours Heroics of Wesley Autrey. http://www.rockawave.com/news/2007-02-09/Community/026.html.
  25. Twain, M. (1966). The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  26. Urmson, J. O. (1958). Saints and Heroes. Reprinted in Joel Feinberg (Ed.) (1969) Moral Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Weinberg, J. (2011). Is government supererogation possible? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 92(2), 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wiesenthal, S. (1989). Justice Not Vengence. London: Mandarin.Google Scholar
  29. Williams, B. (1981). Moral Luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations