The obligation exists prior to the decision to honor it. It does not compel, but it does motivate. We experience choice when there are conflicting motives, and we need to resolve upon a course of action.
Kant identifies the motivation of rational beings to act morally "reverence for the law", that is, the very urge of rationality to order phenomena. Aristotle identifies the (ultimate) motivation for moral behavior as the search for happiness, or, more clearly, well- being according to our needs as rational and social animals. Epicurus thought that the whole point of morality was to lead a tranquil and moderate life, free from any strong passion or dissatisfaction.
But whatever the motive, the recognition of a right entails the regulation of a social relationship with another, if only minimally, as in "mind your own business", because they have a right to privacy. We are motivated to follow the rule, but there are counter- motivations. We must choose. Shall we follow the path of obligation, or shall we follow our personal inclinations?
Kant said that the clearest demonstration that an act was moral was when it went against inclination, and was purely dutiful (although in this world, there is always some doubt). But the main thing is that the obligation, understood as a rule we have some stake in following, is always prior to choice, and one horn of the dilemma....... |
