A Supererogatory Act or an Obligation and Duty?

Today, an argument is being replayed over and over again in every aspect of our society.  

We see a tectonic chasm growing in our status structure, wondering who should pay for the legal defense of folks in courts, veterans' needs for reestablishment into communities after the stress of war, taxing of people’s earnings, and in the way we treat the environment and natural resources that surround us.

A variety of people are discovering they have more in common with the working class people of Egypt and Greece, whose language and culture they do not share, than those who would require something in return for any act of kindness or generosity to others. 

Some believe that the above mentioned issues, among many others when acted upon, are supererogatory acts which gives one the ability to believe that helping others is something that is done out of one’s own generosity, without having any mandate to do so as a member of society and they should be praised for the “extra effort” in doing so because they are doing something that is not required of them.

Others believe that we are required, as a society, to have an obligation and a duty to help out others because as a member of humanity one cannot prosper unless all those around them prosper as well; in plain terms it’s the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." This phrase embodies a cherished value: that we should treat people as we would like to be treated.

At first glance, these differences between supererogation and obligation may appear to be subtle, but an enormous rift has developed between folks because of these variations of philosophy. Judgments and decisions which seem obvious have become something that must be revisited because of these varying beliefs. We see this firsthand in our own statehouse.  

Living in a fairly well educated community, as Woodbury is, the inference can be made that duty and obligation, for the betterment of the community as a whole, is incorporated through the actions of state representatives and our senators as they primarily should exist as entities working for us, the citizens of Woodbury and for the ideals of the state of Minnesota and the nation.

Today we see many of the folks controlling these bodies of government tending to believe that it is a supererogatory act to assist the citizens of Minnesota. Several recent decisions made by these bodies can be provided as evidence of these facts.

My viewpoint offers the suggestion that actions by these elected bodies should be done as a matter of obligation and duty to the people of the state, not as a supererogatory act. Imagine what would happen if our veterans and service members saw defending our nation as a supererogatory act, as many officials in the statehouse see defending the citizens rights as. 

Through their actions, teachers, police, health counselors, soldiers, and others in public service all have a duty to help others in the community in their own way. Why shouldn’t we expect the same from our elected and paid state representatives and senators? Lately, it has become clear that some decisions are based on the “rewarding” of special interests for their loyalty and donations to specific causes, rather than upholding the values of the community as a whole. This statement is relevant in that a supererogatory act becomes one which is encouraged and the idea that something is actually required of these bodies for the public good is dismissed as irrelevant or not the obligation or duty of the state to its citizens.  

I would propose that all future policy decisions be based on the overall benefits to the people of Minnesota, and clearly stated in a public forum before being enacted by our bodies of government. This would move the decisions in a direction that would elucidate the motives for laws created, new and existing policy, and development affecting our neighborhoods sending a clear message to state officials that it has a duty and obligation to serve its people. Supererogatory acts should be insufficient in the future and once again “By the people” and “for the people” will mean something to everyone.

Just as our teachers, police, maintenance workers, secretaries, and others fulfill their obligation and duty to the citizens of Minnesota, so should  our state representatives and senators who  exist to serve the people of the community not the special interests of a few.