Can you give an account of "do this" which is much more coherent than obligation and its synonyms though? — Apustimelogist
1. You ought do this
2. You should do this
3. You must do this
4. You are obliged to do this
5. You have an obligation to do this
6. You have a duty to do this — Michael
If you do what's right because you're trying to satisfy others, that's a lesser form of morality. If you do what's right because otherwise you'd let yourself down, that's the higher form. — frank
Such as, the authority in the previous element of the discussion. That exists. It's authority exists (perhaps by consent, so it's some levels above the mechanics of an interpersonal obligation) and is arbitrarily enforced to the emotional contentedness of the majority of it's subjects and little, if anything else, is involved. In this case, I can't quite see how you could then still claim obligations exist. — AmadeusD
The same can be said of an "obligation". It's an empty space between commitment and expectation. But there is nothing there. I guess, while this example is pretty parochial in terms of what concepts its engaging:
Person A promises;
Person B that they will attend X event on date Y specifically to accompany/support. Meaning B being present is crucial.
Person B, unfortunately, perishes on date V (i.e prior to the maturity of the 'promise').
Person A feels their promise is unfulfilled.
Person B is ... dead. There is nothing to oblige. They couldn't feel one way or the other. There is no obligation. — AmadeusD
The situation has not changed for person A. They mentally/emotionally feel their 'obligation'. — AmadeusD
1. Obligations do not exist. People with commitments and expectations exist; or
2. Obligations can exist in a positivist sense only.
Now, that gets messy - the kinds of 'authority' vary, and the enforceability varies etc.. etc.. etc. etc.. but the overall point seems clear to me: the obligation only exists as an instrument of authority and does not obtain without it. However, I now anticipate some type of "well, your emotional reaction is a kind of authority". Yes, it is. But it is not an obligation. It's an enforcement mechanism. So, "obligation" is the wrong word, I'm just trying to be least-confusing. — AmadeusD
Seems to me here you've inadvertently dropped your point here, and picked up mine? I'm only hearing, as conclusions to these points "It leaves a bad taste" or "It would hurt the relationship between entity X and entity Y". Yep. Not an obligation? Onward... — AmadeusD
This explains a whole lot about your responses around Marriage, but this just makes it all the more obvious there exists a legal obligation and where there is no enforcing authority, there is no obligation. And, here, "obligation" actually just means "threat of consequence". — AmadeusD
Only hte brainstate changes, and (in this story) only for the promissor. — AmadeusD
If you, personally, jettison your promise you have no obligation. Even if we're going to grant the obligation "thing" status, its collapsed because you pulled your support out from it. — AmadeusD
It doesn't. One is simply "legitimate authority". The behaviour is the same (i touched on this earlier in this post, funnily enough). What could possibly be said to be different?
"Do this or I'll break your legs" - Dealer
"Do this or I'll take your kids and give them to another set of parents temporarily" - Gov'munt
I may prefer my legs broken, personally. But that aside, there are given rules, and given consequences to not following them. The "culturally embedded" concept of promise functions the same in both of the above scenarios. In fact, I would argue that both of these scenarios exist precisely because the obligation itself is no where to be found. Enforcement solves that. — AmadeusD
Purely on a legal mind-to-legal mind basis, what do you mean here? Is the assertion that there is some kind of legal principle which actually transcends human minds? I have never been able to get on board with anything remotely close to "natural law" type arguments so Im really curious. — AmadeusD
I do not think that entirely fits. On two accounts actually. Also a government that is not chosen by its people, say the government of the Soviet Union, still promulgated law and therefore on this positivist account you now seem to embrace (if only for the sake of argument perhaps), that law also backs up obligations. — Tobias
Secondly, obligations may also arise due to customs and not backed up by sanctions, at least not formal sanctions. For instance if you enter into a promise with your brother to return you the book. — Tobias
the institutions of promising, contracting perhaps even principles of good conduct — Tobias
so historically grown ways of speaking and acting that causes people to expect certain ways of speaking and acting. I think institutions are historically grown and determined in continuous practice so much so that they become part and parcel of our everyday world. — Tobias
That part of the promise being unfulfillable the promise becomes moot and so does the obligation that resulted from it. — Tobias
Netherlands we have the legal figure of the 'natural obligation', — Tobias
(this will elicit more, so I quoted it after the previous one)Things pop in and out of existence all the time — Tobias
he is still under the natural obligation to return it to the original owner — Tobias
There is a world of difference — Tobias
but every good friend would tell them that under this condition they have no obligation anymore, at least I would assume... — Tobias
The institution of promising is violated when promises are not kept. That is not only a private issue between people, but a social issue because the institution of promising is an important pattern by which we govern our conduct and negotiate our journey through the world. — Tobias
Your account, like those of Michael and Frank, still seems to individualistic to me and committed to the idea that things exist but relations do not. — Tobias
Threat of sanction does not explain it — Tobias
the notion that this is they way things should be done. — Tobias
That is logical because a government does not say that. — Tobias
What the government does is to force you to adhere to a norm — Tobias
if a government would behave like a dealer and threaten in the same vein, the obligations its command are moot as its reign lost legitimacy. (The sanctions of govt could be every bit as severe, often even moreso, but that is not the issue I think.) — Tobias
the coherence, consistency and goals of the body of laws itself. — Tobias
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.