Abstract
Christian theology was the source of the supererogation model, based on a freedom of choice or free will intending to achieve a moral purpose. As scholars have shown, morality is one of the prevalent, original motives for asceticism and self-inflicted pain. At first glance, it appears that supererogation is an attribute of self-inflicted painful acts performed by Christian monastic ascetics. This paper shows, however, that we cannot attribute supererogation to these acts nor define them according to the supererogation model, that is concerned with acts beyond what duty or circumstances require, or more than is needed. The possibility of supererogation also raises the question of the authenticity of the love ascetics sought to express: did self-inflicted pain express pure love for God, as a creative practice on the path to freedom, or were these acts motivated by a second-order desire, assimilated by a moral obligation? I will argue that these practices of self-inflicted pain expressed the right measure of love for God: just the right measure, rather than above and beyond what God commands or requires. To substantiate this argument, I discuss the relationship between self-inflicted painful acts performed by Christian ascetics in medieval Central Europe and the four features of supererogation, as they are described in the relevant literature. In doing so, I place these acts, practiced in order to express love for God, outside the universe of practices performed to achieve a moral end.
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
KEYWORDS
Supererogation, Love for God, Self-inflicted Pain, Asceticism, Philosophy of Religion
