Kantian Ethics and Supererogation

Kant's ethics is often faulted for giving 'duty' too broad a scope and failing to recognize the category of supererogatory acts. Some scholars, notably Thomas Hill Jr., have defended Kant by arguing that he can recognize that category. The arthor does not believe that Kant can and tries to show why, but she also thinks that his theory is none the worse for it. This paper examines Kant's reasons for being wary of the distinction between what one must do and what is good to do, but purely optional, as well as arguments in support of the position that the category of the supererogatory is of great importance to ethics. It is argued that all of the meaningful theoretical work which that category is thought to accomplish can be handled by the Kantian framework (in particular, by his distinction between perfect and imperfect duties, together with attention to the agent's character).