Version: v1, Published online: 1998
Retrieved March 29, 2024, from https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/supererogation/v-1
References and further reading
Aquinas, T. (c.1259–65) Summa contra gentiles (Synopsis [of Christian Doctrine] Directed Against Unbelievers), trans. V.J. Bourke, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975.
Aquinas, T. (1266–73) Summa theologiae (Synopsis of Theology), trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1981.
Augustine (394) De sermone Domini in monte (Commentary on the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount), trans. and ed. J.J. Jepson, Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1948, 1.1.2.
Brandt, R.B. (1969) ‘A Utilitarian Theory of Excuses’, Philosophical Review 78: 337–361.
Calvin, J. (1536) Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. F.L. Battles, Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, revised edn, 1986, esp. 2.8.51, 56–57.
Cicero (late 44) De officiis (On Duties), in three books, trans. with notes by M. Griffin and E.M. Atkins, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 1.3.8.
Heyd, D. (1982) Supererogation: Its Status in Ethical Theory, London: Cambridge University Press.
Heyd, D. (1988) ‘Moral Subjects, Freedom, and Idiosyncrasy’, in J. Dancy, J.M.E. Moravscik and C.C.W. Taylor (eds) Human Agency, Language, Duty, and Value: Philosophical Essays in Honor of J.O. Urmson, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Mellema, G. (1991) Supererogation, Obligation, and Offence, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Mill, J.S. (1843) A System of Logic, selections repr. in Utilitarianism and Other Essays, ed. A. Ryan, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1987.
Mill, J.S. (1861) Utilitarianism, repr. in Utilitarianism and Other Essays, ed. A. Ryan, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1987, ch. 5.
Nagel, T. (1986) The View from Nowhere, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 10, section 4.
(Presents a contemporary version of Tertullian’s argument. The context is a very clear and thorough discussion of the tension between the moral and the self-interested points of view, which can be held to recommend conflicting courses of action in the same circumstances.)
Raz, J. (1975) ‘Permissions and Supererogation’, American Philosophical Quarterly 12: 161–168.
Scheffler, S. (1992) Human Morality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 120–132.
(Presents an accessible and suggestive discussion of the contemporary argument about supererogation, which holds both that there are two distinct and competing perspectives (the moral point of view and the self-interested point of view) and that this conflict is caused by a too-narrow conception of the moral realm.)
Slote, M. (1985) Common-Sense Morality and Consequentialism, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 82–86.
(Presents an alternative approach to the problem of overly-demanding obligations of benevolence, on which deontic terms are replaced with the scalar, non-deontic terms, ‘good’, ‘better’, and ‘best’. Pages 86 and following contain a very suggestive discussion of the relative merits of deontic and non-deontic terms in guiding the agent in what to do.)
Tertullian, Quintus Septimus Florens (c. 160–c.220) Exhortation to Chastity, in Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage: Ancient Christian Writers, The Works of the Fathers in Translation, vol. 13, trans. W.P. Le Saint, Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1951.
Trianosky, G. (1986) ‘Supererogation, Wrongdoing, and Vice’, Journal of Philosophy 83: 26–40.
Urmson, J.O. (1958) ‘Saints and Heroes’, in A.I. Melden (ed.) Essays in Moral Philosophy, Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Wolf, S. (1982) ‘Moral Saints’, Journal of Philosophy 79: 419–439.
Williams, B. (1985) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, ch. 10.
Trianosky, Gregory Velazco Y. Bibliography. Supererogation, 1998, doi:10.4324/9780415249126-L101-1. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis, https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/supererogation/v-1/bibliography/supererogation-bib.
Copyright © 1998-2024 Routledge.