This is gonna be the thread where we talk about stuff

In fact, this line of conversation brings us to the idea of supererogatory acts; in particular the idea of 'performing above and beyond the call of duty'.

[insert picture of actor standing on the latest in a series of generic war videogames]

To put it more simply, an individual who performs a supererogatory act is not under an expectation or obligation to do it, and won't be to blame for the consequences of not performing such an act.

There's a school of thought that proposes that some acts are defined as 'supererogatory' even though by definition of their 'duty' the individuals involved have not performed as such:

For example, part of a teacher's duty is to keep their pupils safe - if they risk their own lives to save their students from a horrific-chemistry-lab-accident-turned-building-bonfire, then they are considered to have performed a supererogatory act, though they have themselves not gone above what their duty specifies.

Show Content

SpoilerIt can be said that there is the mitigating factor of risking one's life, but that opens a whole new can of worms. Obviously, if they save their own skin without trying to save any students, then they've been negligent in their duty. However, saving any number of students, even one, already puts the risk-taking factor into account, so is there a certain number of students the teacher is supposed to save before the accolade of a supererogatory act can be given?

You certainly wouldn't say that a teacher who only managed to save one student did the best they could - even if they did.

The same school of thought proposes that the status of a supererogatory act is given in order to 'raise the bar', so to speak - in order to excuse oneself for the moral failings of using free time without the aim of bettering others.



Also, I really like mint chocolate chip ice cream.