I was thinking of it in terms of the conditional "If X doesn't happen then Y will happen", and that this proposition does not entail "I ought X". — Michael

Hmm? What are X and Y?

As in, "If I don't build the house on time then some authority will fine me."

This is true if in the terms of the contract. But this does not prima facie entail "I ought build the house" (or "I ought pay the fine").

As in, "If I don't build the house on time then some authority will fine me."

This is true if in the terms of the contract. But this proposition does not entail "I ought build the house" (or "I ought pay the fine"). — Michael

And so presumably after the deadline, "I owe you money," just means, "Some authority will fine me if I don't give up the money."

Why is the authority fining you?

Why is the authority fining you? — Leontiskos

For not doing what I was contracted to do.

For not doing what I was contracted to do. — Michael

Did you tell him you changed your mind and reneged?

Did you tell him you changed your mind? — Leontiskos

I don't understand the relevance of the question. If you're asking what I would do in real life then I would either pay the fine or hire lawyers to find a way to save me from paying the fine.

I don't understand the relevance of the question. — Michael

Earlier you told me that you honestly believe that you can just change your mind and decide not to fulfill a promise. Why can't you just change your mind and decide not to fulfill a contract? Why not just tell the authority that you've changed your mind and decided not to fulfill the contract?

I think obligation is something people feel sometimes. "He didn't want to go to the party, but he felt obligated.". Or it could be something that people in the area believe. "Most Americans believed he was obliged to resign.". It's just describing how people feel or attitudes they have.

Earlier you told me that you honestly believe that you can just change your mind and decide not to fulfill a promise. Why can't you just change your mind and decide not to fulfill a contract? Why not just tell the authority that you've changed your mind and decided not to fulfill the contract? — Leontiskos

I can do all of that. And then I will presumably face some further punishment.

I can do all of that. And then I will presumably face some further punishment. — Michael

But why? Why not reason with the authority and explain to him, like you did to me, that you intended to fulfill the contract when you signed it and now you've changed your mind? If you are not obliged to pay the contract, then surely you are not subject to further punishment...?

But why? Why not reason with the authority and explain to him, like you did to me, that you intended to fulfill the contract when you signed it and now you've changed your mind? If you are not obliged to pay the contract, then surely you are not subject to further punishment...? — Leontiskos

I can say whatever I want. I doubt it would convince a judge. The contract states that if I do not build the house then I am to pay a fine. The law states that if I do not pay the fine then I am to be jailed. So I build the house, pay a fine, or go to jail. Unless I have very good lawyers, I have to choose between one of these outcomes.

That's all there is to the matter. I don't see what role obligations have – or even what obligations are, as both you and Banno refuse to make sense of them.

I can say whatever I want. I doubt it would convince a judge. The contract states that if I do not build the house then I am to pay a fine. The law states that if I do not pay the fine then I am to be jailed. So I build the house, pay a fine, or go to jail. Unless I have very good lawyers, I have to choose between one of these outcomes. — Michael

Well, suppose your judge is a good philosopher, and he admits that laws cannot be premised on non-existent realities. And really, wouldn't any logical person affirm the same? So why not explain to the judge that you agreed to the contract when you signed it, but you disagree with it now? Do you think you would have a plausible argument to convince an impartial judge? Do you think you have good arguments to convince him that there is no metaphysical basis for obligations, and therefore obligations cannot exist, and therefore you do not owe me $25,000? If your arguments are sound, then why not apply them in real life?

Well, suppose your judge is a good philosopher, and he admits that laws cannot be premised on non-existent realities. And really, wouldn't any logical person affirm the same? So why not explain to the judge that you agreed to the contract when you signed it, but you disagree with it now? Do you think you would have a plausible argument to convince an impartial judge? Do you think you have good arguments to convince him that there is no metaphysical basis for obligations, and therefore obligations cannot exist, and therefore you do not owe me $25,000? If your arguments are sound, then why not apply them in real life? — Leontiskos

The terms of the contract simply say "Michael is to build the house or pay a fine". The law simply says "if someone does not fulfil the terms of their contract then they are to be jailed".

Neither the contract nor the law depend on the existence of obligations, and so arguing that obligations don't exist is an irrelevant argument.

The terms of the contract simply say "Michael is to build the house or pay a fine". The law simply says "if someone does not fulfil the terms of their contract then they are to be jailed".

Neither the law nor the contract depend on the existence of obligations, and so arguing that obligations don't existence is an irrelevant argument. — Michael

Well, if you don't like the word 'obligation', then instead of trying to convince the judge that you have no obligation to fulfill your contract you should convince him that you need not fulfill the contract and that you need not be punished. After all, why must you fulfill the contract? Why must you be punished? Why must you do what the law tells you to do? Why must you do what you said you were going to do when you signed the contract? Why must you be held to your word? Surely the judge would have little to answer you.

Well, if you don't like the word 'obligation', then instead of trying to convince the judge that you have no obligation to fulfill your contract you should convince him that you need not fulfill the contract and that you need not be punished. After all, why must you fulfill the contract? Why must you be punished? Why must you do what the law tells you to do? Why must you do what you said you were going to do when you signed the contract? — Leontiskos

The law simply says "if someone does not fulfil the terms of their contract then they are to be jailed". The judge then rules that I did not fulfil the terms of my contract and so orders the bailiffs to take me to jail.

Again, the existence of some supposed obligation is utterly irrelevant.

- I will come back to this, but I want to present a different angle before I go:

• Leontiskos: What if a contractor in your area was known to never fulfill his contracts. Would you contract with him for a house?
• Interlocutor: No, because the house would not be built on time.
• L: How do you know that?
• I: Because the contractor is not reliable.
• L: Why is he not reliable?
• I: Because he does not fulfill his contracts.
• L: Is not he unreliable precisely because he fails to fulfill his obligations?
• I: A contract is not an obligation.
• L: If you are happy with receiving the penalty as a settlement then you would not need to view it as an obligation, but if you want your house built on time then it would seem to be an obligation. If reliability in doing what he says he will do is not reliability in his obligations, then what is it? And if you decide against him as a contractor on the basis of his unreliability and inability to do what he said he would do, then what exactly is it that your decision is based on? What is the per se thing about him that makes you choose someone else? Someone else who always does what they promise to do?

People want a contractor who will build them a house; they don't want a contractor who will not build them a house.

You are really overthinking this.

Yes. I've been very clear on that. This is true even using Searle's definition of a promise. Your claim that if S promises to do A then S has undertaken an obligation to do A is as of yet unsupported. — Michael

Well, what is a promise, if not the undertaking of an obligation?

Presumably, nothing, and there are no such things as promises.

Yet there are promises.

Which forms a neat reductio to show that you are mistaken.

Well, what is a promise, if not the undertaking of an obligation? — Banno

Searle’s conditions (1) - (6) (and maybe sometimes even (7) and (8)).

These do not entail the undertaking of an obligation.

As a specific example: my girlfriend promises to marry me, but several weeks later changes her mind.

Is my girlfriend obligated to marry me?

What even is an obligation? She just either does or she doesn’t.

The obligation is disappointment, at that point I think. That is, there is a causal relationship between the obligation and feeling (presuming you wanted the marriage at least). Just because obligations cease to be doesn't mean they never were, right? Changing ones mind doesn't really work when it comes to the truth of a statement: What about obligations makes them different?

Seems to me that the social setting is more important than one's mind: so if you promise something, you're under an obligation because that's how we understand one another and that has causal properties.

my girlfriend promises to marry me, but several weeks later changes her mind.

Is my girlfriend obligated to marry me? — Michael

Yes. She undertook to marry you. Either she reneged on that obligation or you allowed her to leave it.

Just because obligations cease to be doesn't mean they never were, right? — Moliere

yep.

She undertook to marry you. — Banno

She intended to marry me. That’s all there is to it.

Either she reneged on that obligation or you allowed her to leave it. — Banno

You still haven’t explained what an obligation is.

It's a mind-dependent thingy.

People want a contractor who will build them a house; they don't want a contractor who will not build them a house. — Michael

And you think it is possible to claim that one of the contractors is more reliable without at the same time saying that he is more likely to fulfill his obligations?

The law simply says "if someone does not fulfil the terms of their contract then they are to be jailed". The judge then rules that I did not fulfil the terms of my contract and so orders the bailiffs to take me to jail.

Again, the existence of some supposed obligation is utterly irrelevant. — Michael

You are recasting the entire social sphere. Your "promises" and "contracts" are not real promises or contracts. Your "penalties" are not real penalties. Your "debts" ("owes") are not real debts (although you slipped there for a second). For example, a contract involves a promise to fulfill what one says they will fulfill, and the penalty that may follow is a real penalty, not just someone forcing you to randomly do something you'd rather not do. I think your error is quite similar to Anscombe's, noted above, in that the occurrence of natural debts is being overlooked in favor of a purely positivistic legal conception.

You think promising involves saying and intending to do something in the future, with no regard to the fulfillment of that thing. You admit that the promise either is or is not fulfilled, but you deny that the promiser has any obligation to so fulfill it. This is wrong. To promise and to intend are two different things. We intend to do things in the future all the time, but it does not follow from this that we are making promises. Banno got at it earlier:

↪Michael So this tells me only that you will not be held to your promises.

OK. You are not a man of your word. — Banno

What does it mean to give one's word, or to make a promise? Here is Aquinas:

A vow denotes a binding to do or omit some particular thing. Now one man binds himself to another by means of a promise, which is an act of the reason to which faculty it belongs to direct. For just as a man by commanding or praying, directs, in a fashion, what others are to do for him, so by promising he directs what he himself is to do for another. Now a promise between man and man can only be expressed in words or any other outward signs; [...] Now a promise is the outcome from a purpose of doing something: and a purpose presupposes deliberation, since it is the act of a deliberate will. Accordingly three things are essential to a vow: the first is deliberation. the second is a purpose of the will; and the third is a promise, wherein is completed the nature of a vow. — Aquinas, ST II-II.88.1 Whether a vow consists in a mere purpose of the will?

In his reply to objection 1 he addresses your claim directly, namely the claim that a promise is nothing more than a purpose or intention.

Why is it bad to go back on promises, not only for others but also for oneself? It is bad because it is to be a shitty man, in the same way that to continually try to do something and fail at it is to be a shitty man. "By promising he directs what he himself is to do for another," and someone who continually reneges or simply fails in his promises is a failure. He is unable to direct himself. He is unable to do what he promises—and yes, also intends—to do. To fail to understand why promises involve obligations is a bit like failing to understand why reaching out to turn on the light involves turning on the light. "If it turns on, it turns on. If not, not. It has nothing to do with my reaching out." :scream:

Your bizarre ideas also undercut any notion of debt. On your view if you borrow a shovel from your neighbor you have no debt to him, you do not owe it to him to give it back; or if you tell your girlfriend that you will marry her then on your view you have no obligation to marry her. If you didn't then the engagement would mean nothing at all! And when you renege on your contract to build my house you owe me a debt. The thing imposed for breaking a contract is a penalty, not merely a consequence; and when you fail to fulfill a promise or a vow, what you subsequently owe to the other party is more than what you originally promised, because by breaching their trust you incur an additional debt. This is why, why you stand up your girlfriend at a restaurant, she has a right to be angry with you rather than simply sad because she lost out on a meal.

She intended to marry me. That’s all there is to it. — Michael

Well, no. She also committed to marrying you. She did not just intend to do so, she undertook doing so. She said she would. She bound herself to you. She placed herself under an obligation.

But we are now in the usual tediously circular posture of so many of our chats. No blame, just no progress.

She bound herself to you. She placed herself under an obligation. — Banno

Which still needs to be explained.

I've offered my own understanding of obligations; they are commands treated as if they were truth-apt propositions, but as commands are not truth-apt propositions obligations are a fiction, and barely even sensible.

If this account is incorrect then please provide a correct account, else how am I to even understand what you are trying to argue? All I can point out is that your conclusion does not follow from Searle's list of necessary and sufficient conditions, which you yourself directed me to. You appear to misinterpret his conditions (7) and (8). They only describe what S intends to happen. S intends to be placed under an obligation (and for H to know this), but this does not prima facie entail that S is placed under an obligation (whatever an obligation is), much like intending to be President does not entail being President.

And you think it is possible to claim that one of the contractors is more reliable without at the same time saying that he is more likely to fulfill his obligations? — Leontiskos

In this context what is the difference between these two propositions?

1. He is more likely to fulfil his obligations
2. He is more likely to complete the contract

If they're the same then I have no objections, except to point out that the introduction of the term “obligation” is unnecessary, and evidently susceptible to misunderstanding.

If they're different then I need (1) explained, and to know why (2) is not a sufficient account.

I guess you're asking what "obligation" is supposed to be adding to the act of uttering a promise.

↪Michael
I guess you're asking what "obligation" is supposed to be adding to the act of uttering a promise. — frank

And the rest of us would simply ask what a promise is supposed to be without the inclusion of obligation.

As I said above, it makes as much sense to ask what the turning on of the light is supposed to be adding to the act of turning on the light. You could think of a promise as an act prolonged through time, just like the turning on of a light. To promise to do something without directing yourself (by binding yourself) to the fulfillment of the promise is like reaching to turn on a light without turning on the light. "I reached to turn on the light, but it makes no difference to my act whether the light turns on or not. If it does, it does. If it does not, it does not. It's indifferent with respect to my act."