I don't usually see supererogation being discussed as a topic, god thing in our ethics curriculum we include James Opie Urmson's supererogation. This video helps expound on the ethical concept further since our discussions are often nailed to Urmson's idea alone.
Qualified supererogatory falls out automatically if we just treat normative or prescriptive matters of morality analogously to factual or descriptive matters of reality, just with direction of fit flipped. Truth is different from necessity, so there are non-necessary, contingent truths. Not everything contingent is true (and everything false is contingent), but some contingent things are still true, even though they’re not NECESSARY. We can even have knowledge of not only necessary truths but even merely contingent ones, although this knowledge is not a priori like with necessary truths, but merely a posteriori. (I will fight you, Kripke.) Likewise, goodness is different from obligation, so there are non-obligatory, omissible goods. Not everything omissible is good (and everything bad is omissible), but some omissible things are still good, even though they’re not OBLIGATORY. We can even have duties to not only obligatory goods but even merely omissible ones, although this duty is not perfect like with obligatory goods, but merely imperfect (pace Kant). All and only omissible goods are supererogatory. (Also, analytic and synthetic truth are analogous to procedural and distributive justice, which largely correlate with the necessary / a priori and contingent / a posteriori, and the obligatory/perfect and omissible/imperfect, respectively).
James Opie Urmson, a philosopher who studied supererogatory actions, consider them to be, thus his famous article 'Heroes and Saints' came to be (a systematic philosophical study of supererogation), I recommend it, it's just a short read.
Deontic logic suffers from a binary bias. Right vs. Wrong. Is there not a 3rd or 4th choice? Not Right is often, in reality, not the same as Wrong. Not Wrong does not mean Right. Non-binary logic is better, #RM3 deontic logic can be formulated in terms of monads, which allow you to make this distinction.
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't usually see supererogation being discussed as a topic, god thing in our ethics curriculum we include James Opie Urmson's supererogation. This video helps expound on the ethical concept further since our discussions are often nailed to Urmson's idea alone.
SYCOPHANTS?
3:00 deontic ,right /wrong///axiology / virtue & vice
9:00 20/20 hindsight, bloody history
TY!
Qualified supererogatory falls out automatically if we just treat normative or prescriptive matters of morality analogously to factual or descriptive matters of reality, just with direction of fit flipped.
Truth is different from necessity, so there are non-necessary, contingent truths. Not everything contingent is true (and everything false is contingent), but some contingent things are still true, even though they’re not NECESSARY. We can even have knowledge of not only necessary truths but even merely contingent ones, although this knowledge is not a priori like with necessary truths, but merely a posteriori. (I will fight you, Kripke.)
Likewise, goodness is different from obligation, so there are non-obligatory, omissible goods. Not everything omissible is good (and everything bad is omissible), but some omissible things are still good, even though they’re not OBLIGATORY. We can even have duties to not only obligatory goods but even merely omissible ones, although this duty is not perfect like with obligatory goods, but merely imperfect (pace Kant).
All and only omissible goods are supererogatory.
(Also, analytic and synthetic truth are analogous to procedural and distributive justice, which largely correlate with the necessary / a priori and contingent / a posteriori, and the obligatory/perfect and omissible/imperfect, respectively).
Should all attributions of ‘heroism’ be constrained to supererogatory actions?
James Opie Urmson, a philosopher who studied supererogatory actions, consider them to be, thus his famous article 'Heroes and Saints' came to be (a systematic philosophical study of supererogation), I recommend it, it's just a short read.
Deontic logic suffers from a binary bias. Right vs. Wrong. Is there not a 3rd or 4th choice? Not Right is often, in reality, not the same as Wrong. Not Wrong does not mean Right. Non-binary logic is better, #RM3 deontic logic can be formulated in terms of monads, which allow you to make this distinction.