Self-regarding supererogatory actions

Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (3):487–498 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Many philosophers, in discussing supererogation, maintain that supererogatory actions must be done for the benefit of others. In this paper I argue that there can be instances of self-regarding supererogatory actions. That is, there are cases in which the primary (or sole) intended beneficiary of a supererogatory action is the agent herself, and she need not be acting out of a concern for morality or moral rules. In such cases the agent still acts suitably 'beyond the call of duty', and in a morally praiseworthy fashion.

Similar books and articles


Added to PP

1,167 (#8,110)

6 months
167 (#9,287)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jason Kawall
Colgate University

Citations of this work

Consequentializing moral theories.Douglas W. Portmore - 2007 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (1):39–73.
Supererogation, Sacrifice, and the Limits of Duty.Alfred Archer - 2016 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 54 (3):333-354.
Supererogation, optionality and cost.Claire Benn - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (10):2399-2417.
Consequentializing.Douglas W. Portmore - 2009 - Philosophy Compass 4 (2):329-347.
Rational supererogation and epistemic permissivism.Robert Weston Siscoe - 2021 - Philosophical Studies 179 (2):571-591.

View all 23 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The schizophrenia of modern ethical theories.Michael Stocker - 1976 - Journal of Philosophy 73 (14):453-466.
The supererogatory, the foolish and the morally required.Barry Curtis - 1981 - Journal of Value Inquiry 15 (4):311-318.
The Nature and Value of Supererogatory Actions.Nancy A. Stanlick - 1999 - Journal of Social Philosophy 30 (1):209-222.

View all 6 references / Add more references