Since one cannot characterize behavior as moral or immoral except against a standard, and that standard consists of obligations, according to standard usage in discussing such matters, you seem to have talked yourself into a dead end. Either you conform your behavior to the standard, which means meeting the obligation, or you don't. If you do, you behave morally. If you don't, you do not.
Outside of the societal standards, which are reflected in laws suppoprting my (and your) fundamental rights to ourselves, and to other property, and to which I have voluntarily acquiesced for my own reasons--which (AND WHOSE) standards might you be referring to as support for your argument that you have an inherent RIGHT to DEMAND (of me), and by implication to FORCE (from me)--action or behaviour that would realize these desires of yours...presumably your standards as well?
People in society have myriad individual and group standards under which they voluntarily conduct their affairs without interference or DEMANDS from other individuals and groups. People that think their own standards and beliefs and desires should be the benchmark of all others are common in all societies. They are forever exerting their righteous CLAIMS and DEMANDS to CONTROL the freedom of others, simply BECAUSE they have the aggressive genes of the pack leader. They can be very dangerous to those who merely want to be left in peace--to live undisturbed in harmony and good will, and of course good deeds, with others of their kind and nature.
And by the way, you spent an inordinate amount of time over several posts to establish a precedent between us of honoring the dictionary meaning of the first presenter. I thought your position was illogical and merely defensive, but I have adopted it voluntarily according to my voluntary respect of your passion for it; So, I would appreciate you not confusing us and making logic difficult, by altering meanings once defined, particularly since I have used the numero uno--PRIMARY meanings, and only by using precisely defined meanings can we have a meaningful argument.
we have a stake in society, and the underlying rules are meant to govern our conduct in relation to one another.
I have a stake in a FREE society--not the kind that your insistence on personal DEMANDS against my freedom leads me to believe YOU are thinking of. I have a stake in an unenslaved society, where people have risen above the ancient jungle law of the pack, and where all treat one another as individuals without DEMANDS or FORCE--other than that which reasonable individuals have agreed to honor and live under in lawful order to preserve LIBERTY.
I have told you over and over, I don't respect your declaration of a personal right to DEMAND I meet your desires--whether it be in standards, or in anything else. I demand nothing of you except to obey the law that we have instituted in respect to our inherent RIGHTS to freedom.
There are many societies that might allow you to make individual demands upon me in spite of my lawful behavior. Perhaps you simply need to find one that agrees that you have a CLAIM/DEMAND upon my freedom, beyond the shared laws we follow.
These rules, at least in their refined version, show us how we ought to behave in most circumstances. Because we ought to behave in accordance with the rules, they are obligations
This is specious reasoning.
NO, we ought not "ought to behave in accordance with the rules". We ought to evaluate the rules independently, and then to decide what if any obligations to ourself we will assume. In most societies, I would atempt to escape from their rules and from their influence, because most societies are immoral by my standards.
the idea of social obligation is essential to morality
No, the idea of social COOPERATION in the respecting of individual rights and liberties is essential to an ordered society characterised by moral individuals. Morality obtains fron the freedom to choose. When choice is free and uncoerced, then the idea, and the resulting behaviour, may be given a moral tag. But only individuals CHOOSE. When enough of them choose the same things, then they make laws or rules or play baseball.
All of this is matter of common sense for anyone who recognizes that there is an objective, non- arbitrary basis for morality
Then, it is common sense for only a portion of the world, and you are discounting and dismissing the beliefs of all the others. I have not said that MY moral beliefs are absolutely objective--only that they rest on reason--MINE. And I believe that all moral beliefs rest on reason. Where the reason is incredibly weak, and more representative of the blind and irrational dominance urges that we used to employ for survival in our more animalistic past; And when it is shared by a large number of people...one may be confronted by some very ugly systems of thought.
I will be back later... |
