Moral heroes are usually thought of as people who go beyond what is obligatory. Elizabeth Harman discusses whether sometimes we ought to act as moral heroes. She is in conversation with David Edmonds for this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.
This is philosophy bites, with me, David.
Edmonds, and me, Nigel Warburton.
If you enjoy philosophy bites, please support us.
We're unfunded, and all donations will be gratefully received.
For more details, go to www.philosophybytes.com.
Putting your life at risk to save a stranger isn't something that we think of as morally obligatory.
But this sort of heroic act is usually morally praiseworthy, even though optional.
Elizabeth Harmon suggests that there's another class of actions which we don't have to perform, that we really should do, which sounds paradoxical.
Liz Harmon, welcome to philosophy Bites.
Thank you so much for having me.
We're talking today about moral heroes and your claim that at least sometimes we should behave like moral heroes.
What is a moral hero?
I'm interested in the idea that sometimes there's something that you don't have to do that morality doesn't require of you, and yet, all things considered, you should do it.
So my thought is that even when we're within the realm of the morally permissible and we're choosing among options that are all morally permissible, still, your reasons might support one action over another.
And this can happen when one of your options is a heroic option.
So sometimes I think you should do something heroic.
That's the phenomenon that I want to focus on.
Philosophers talk about supererogatory actions, which are actions that go above and beyond the call of duty.
Is that exactly the same phenomena that you're addressing?
Yes.