Maybe it isn't such a huge gap. Maybe you just don't like traditional language about morality, because it sounds authoritarian to you. If that is all it is, then we really don't have a great problem.
Assuming, though, a remaining theoretical dispute, I am happy enough to say that at this level of moral grounding, there is not an obligation to participate, rather, there is a stake, a strong motive. However, once conceding the stake, there are rules which one must generally follow both to uphold human dignity and to contribute and profit from society. It is those that I refer to as duties or obligations, although they admit of exceptions depending upon exigent circumstances. They are necessitated by the stakes we have already acknowledged.
Yes, standing up your prom date is immoral, unless there is some very good reason, like you had to take your brother to the hospital (just an example of exigent circumstance). Rules about masturbation and meat eating do not, in fact, derive from the notion of common decency, and are not part of the consensus. Rules against masturbation come from a particular view of spiritual purity, and the need to restrain sensuality. Rules against meat eating have to do with making compassion for suffering a moral trump card, instead of making human dignity the center of one's moral concerns. Anyway, I am merely trying to indicate a minimum, not prejudge what the maximum requirements of "right living" might be. It is absolutely true, we have nothing but our reason to guide us beyond the elementary promptings of conscience...... |
