Supererogation

A fundamental question in business ethics is whether organizations have a responsibility, or even a right, to engage in activities—perhaps aimed at betterment of society—beyond their formally designated roles of providers of goods and services. For example, should firms pay more attention to the environment than is required by law? Should they provide better pay and working conditions than law and market conditions demand? If they do engage in such acts, what are the associated costs to shareholders and others? Similarly, at the individual level there has been growing emphasis on individual actions that exceed formal role requirements to assist others in the firm, meet deadlines, protect the organization, or otherwise “go above and beyond the call of duty.” These issues have deep roots, founded in the concept of supererogation.

The combination of two Latin words (supererogare), supererogation essentially means “to pay over and above” or “to do more than is required by duty.” Supererogatory acts combine elements of optionality and praiseworthiness. The term first appeared in the Latin translations of the scriptures; a New Testament reference is found in Luke 10:35, in the parable of the Good Samaritan. It was later adapted by ecclesiastical writers for the “excess of merit” attributed to saints—works or good deeds over and above what is required for their own salvation and the merit of which is transferable to others in need of indulgence.

According to this view, actions of “superabundant merit,” typically collected by the works of Jesus and the saints who greatly exceeded what was required for their own salvation, are deposited in the Spiritual Treasury of the Church to be disposed by the Pope and the bishops for remitting the sins of others. The institution of Indulgences, by which sinners could buy remission of their sins if they “took up the cross” against the infidel in the Crusades or, later, through contributions to the coffers of the Catholic Church, developed in the late Middle Ages. Indulgences were even offered to markets, taverns, and brothels if they gave a substantial portion of their profits to the Church.

The concept of supererogation drew fierce attacks during the time of the Reformation. Luther, Calvin, and Anglican theologians condemned the idea of “super-meritorious” actions and the corruption associated with the commercialization of the system of indulgences that it justified. They argued that no person can do all that is strictly required as a duty, much less exceed it.

This antagonism toward supererogation, coupled with the cessation of the institution of indulgences in the Catholic Church, led to a sharp diminution in interest in the concept of supererogation. In fact, the concept did not appear in nonreligious ethical theory until Urmson's seminal 1958 article “Saints and Heroes” (though Urmson did not actually use the term). Urmson argued that, in addition to the traditional threefold classification of moral actions as obligatory, permitted, and prohibited, there were acts that were praiseworthy though nonobligatory (actions that are good to do but not bad not to do). Since then, supererogation has again been widely discussed and hotly debated. While the context has shifted from theological to ethical, the terms of debate often remain similar.

...