Actions to help those who are in an extreme situation fall within supererogatory acts, i.e. "it would be better" to occur, but the inaction is not sanctioned, "not wrong." The two phrases, "right" and "wrong" applies the same people in the same circumstances, with the same obligations. In this paper I will try to determine the moral value of the supererogatory actions at an individual level, taking into account the institutional commitments that political decisions are determined by cultural, ideological contexts, and likely to violating moral principles. The supererogatory acts will be analyzed from two perspectives: a) the effective action derived from a personal ethics (classical utilitarianism), b) strategic actions arising from impersonal considerations related to consequences (utilitarianism). To grasp how individuals perceive and evaluate the quality of the supererogatory actions a questionnaire (testing hypotheses) was applied. Through this, it was intended, on the one hand, to establish the coordinates of which the supererogatory actions are placed (as defined as actions that lie beyond the debt), on the other hand, at another level of analysis it ranged the attempt to distinguish between the consequences and conditions of performing (reciprocity) supererogatory actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]