First, the business about interdependence occured in a context of objecting to trying to describe complete isolation as a normative condition.
Second, within the context of our discussion, I specifically said that claims are often unenforceable. Of course, sometimes they are enforceable, as when you abscond with my property, I can assert my right and expect the police to retrieve it, assuming it is recoverable. But in many instances, there is only your recognition of the obligation, and whether or not you choose to honor it. That is the primary way we discussed the matter.
Third, your description of mass slaughter is wildly inappropriate to both the tone and content of the discussion. What ethnic cleansing and savagery has to do with my assertion that we have a mutual obligation to behave with decency and courtesy to one another beats me.
Moral obligations are voluntary, in the sense that we are at liberty not to honor them. In some instances they are made into legal obligations, with an enforcement mechanism, for example, in the case of robbery. If you are coerced to conform, it may take away the moral value of your action. On the other hand, the defense of social order may demand the compromise of autonomy. We only, however, compel the minimum. Society cannot force you to be a good father, it can only threaten you with sanctions if you beat, molest, or abandon your child, for example. Whether or not you are affectionate, attentive, or fully reliable is a matter outside of the scope of government. But then, no one gets credit for doing the minimum anyway, rather, one is blamed for not even doing it.
In the end, then, voluntariness is desirable, but not necessary, and in the most egregious circumstances, society is right to intervene to defend rights and enforce obligations. |
