Some actions are right, and some are wrong. But aren't some even better than right---the kinds of things that heroes and saints do? Yet some philosophers think that such "supererogatory" acts make no sense; we should always do the best thing open to us, and there is no room for better than best. John and Ken discuss the philosophy and psychology of saints and heroes with Susan Wolf from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
John and Ken start the show by throwing out some ideas of what it might mean to be a saint or a hero. They both think these labels are for people who go above the call of moral duty. John questions the value of being a hero for a life. He doubts that sacrificing one’s life for others really makes one’s own life any more worthy.
The hosts then welcome Professor Susan Wolf to the show. Susan quickly defines a saint as someone overflowing with moral goodness. She distinguishes between two types of saints: those who do moral acts because those are the only ones that occur to them, and those that do them out of a sense of duty. She then makes the controversial claim that she wouldn’t want to be a saint or even be close friends with such a person. Ken agrees: he thinks being around such people would remind him of all the flaws of his own morality.
休息之后，约翰再次表达了他对英雄理想的担忧。他说我们把战争英雄放在如此崇高的地位以至于人们愿意为荣耀冒生命危险。他不认为为别人冒生命危险对自己的生命有任何好处。苏珊不同意这种观点，她认为充满道德的生活是有价值的。然而，她并不认为生活的全部就是道德上的善良。她说，美好生活还有很多其他方面。
A caller suggests that what our moral duty asks of us is dependent on our situations. Everyone agrees, and Susan goes on to say that we often think our situations ask less of us than they do. If we realized our full moral responsibility more often, saints and heroes would not be necessary.
