An obligation is always something that can be honored or flouted.
I said that. True.
There is nothing new in saying I have the freedom to be immoral
True.
Now, you say that my obligation is to keep my promise to myself, that is, to keep my moral commitments.
True (and we have already agreed the obligation does not compell).
But that is not a recognition of your right, but a choice of decorum on my part
Well, if you are talking about the promise that was related to a decision on your part to honor your "recognition" of my rights, and which was put in just that context in the last post...then, I will assume that the recognition of my RIGHT has already occurred; Otherwise, what promise are you introducing, unstated--and why?
A recognition of your right always entails an obligation to you, even if it is an obligation to leave you alone.
A Recognition of my RIGHTS is a fait acompli in this instance, even if you have absolutely no intent of behaving morally toward me. So if you have no moral intention--you have no obligation. If you have a moral intention to a certain course of action; Well, obviously that is an obligation to yourself.
What one may call the Kantian basis for this is respect for rational beings
Partially. There is far too much information out there for me to embrace the philosophy of any one person. My philosophy is my own and is not static. It would probably be a good thread idea to work slowly through all the philosophers without antagonism or opposition, but only to enjoy. I wonder who has the time... |
