Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is there properly any kind of obligation?

Rate this topic


James Bond
 Share

Recommended Posts

How do you propose to fail to comply with reality?

I don't propose anything of the sort. Reality, in order to be commanded, requires obedience. But if someone didn't want want to command reality, they could just drift, etc.

My question is...is obligation a feature of philosophy? Because there is such a thing as a promise, but obligations sound like "duty" ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think there is such a thing as obligation? Reality does dictate, but is anyone obligated to comply?

There are obligations that you agree to. For instance, by signing a contract, you obligate yourself to fulfill that contract. It would not make sense to have an obligation to reality though, because there is nothing forcing you to comply except your own choice. Obligation usually implies some amount of enforcement, and obviously reality can't enforce even morality. Of course, there are consequences of all actions, but nothing obligates you to strive for particular consequences. Just to clarify, by enforcement, I mean there must be some entity forcing you to comply. For contracts, law enforcement *forces* you to comply. For acting in accordance with what is best for your long-term existence, well, there is nothing to *force* you to comply. Promises can be obligations too though, so maybe a broader idea than just enforcement is desiring and maintaining justice.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think there is such a thing as obligation? Reality does dictate, but is anyone obligated to comply?

The verb “oblige” (to bind by oath, contract, promise, etc.) dates back to 1325, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. “Obligate,” which came along in 1533, adds a moral dimension to the sense of obligation; it means to bind morally, or to put (a person) under a moral obligation.

Reality is non-negotiable. Reality simply is.

While obligate arises as in a legal context, reality assures that if you step off the edge of the Empire State Building, choose not to eat, or take a nap outdoors when the temperature is below 0° that you will comply.

In the context of philosophy, in the branch of epistemology as the science of the methods of knowledge, ethics as the science of the methods of living one's life - it identifies if you do 'x', 'y' should follow. If you don't do 'x' but do 'z' instead, a different consequence awaits. The law of causality, a corollary, is action appied to identity. It would suggest that the action you choose initiate, as an entity will determine the effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the sense that it is normally used, absolutely not. You are not obligated to do anything or to not do anything.

There are just consequences. My current theory is that the proper use of the word "should" and other normative phrases reduces to a description of the relationship between actions and pre-defined goals. Yet the word and its synonyms has been abused. People for most of history would often hide the reasoning why one "should" do anything and just tell them that they should and that is all they needed to know. People would come to accept "shoulds" without even asking where the other part of the statement was.

It is like a child asking a parent "but why", and the parent answering "because".

The only real obligations are as follows -

Civil Engineers are obliged to consistently double check their calculations if they wish to continue being civil engineers.

The above is logically consistent and testable.

Business men who enter into contracts are obliged to follow through with them if they plan on anyone else who hears about the contract dealing with them again.

Same.

The following aren't real obligations rather incomplete propositions -

Civil engineers are obligated to keep in mind the desires of those who the are building things for.

The above is untestable because it is an incomplete proposition.

Business men are obligated to deal honestly with others.

Same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nature dictates and you don't oblige...well, nature will take its course. No living organism, except man, can contradict objective reality. Man can, if he is willing to pay the price which is oblivion. Such an action would defeat life as standard of value and therefore immoral

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is if by 'obligation' you mean 'commitment,' not 'duty', meaning that you must act accordingly after signing a contract and have no right to do it otherwhise. There is such thing, as well, as moral necessarity: e.g., to survive one should live qua man.

There is no such thing as a fundamental, a metaphysical obligation: e.g., the original sin, which leads to an unavoidable self contradiction; If one has an unavoidable congenital moral duty, he therefore isn't a volitional being, and if he not a volitional being there is no such thing as morality to his values. In an ethical context, values are chosen to guide his life and the purposes of his life.

Every obligation is contextual: whether to a certain consequence or to a certain method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...