My question is premised on the assumption that morality has some kind of objective basis outside of mere social convention. I realize this is a controversial proposition, but the issue of moral objectivity is beyond the scope of this question.
For those that agree in an objective basis to morality: Does the concept of moral obligation also have an objective moral basis?
For instance, how much is one morally obligated to give to charity? How much is one morally obligated to do for family? Friends? Complete strangers? Can these questions be in principle answered objectively, or is it a matter of opinion?
My own (not very well-informed) belief at the moment is that while morality is objective, the notion of moral obligation is not; it merely denotes an arbitrary minimum standard of morality to be deemed socially acceptable. The objective of moral action is to maximize morality, not to fulfill a minimal obligation. I don't know if this view is philosophically tenable, or what issues it may face, so I'm opening it up to the forum for scrutiny.
Can you explain in greater detail what distinction you see between "morality" and "moral obligation"? Because a lot of philosophers will use the phrases near-synonymously: if it is moral to do something, that means you have a moral obligation to do it, simply by definition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
One example I'm thinking of is donating to charity. Most would agree that it is moral to donate to charity (with caveats as necessary), but I'm not sure that everyone would be of agreement that everyone has a moral obligation to donate to charity, or agree on how much one is morally obligated to donate. Is there a meaningful distinction between the two?
My question is premised on the assumption that morality has some kind of objective basis outside of mere social convention... For those that agree in an objective basis to morality: Does the concept of moral obligation also have an objective moral basis?...
To my opinion a possible solution would be that if you accept any objective basis to morality it would be a matter of finding the moral ground of any premise that would entail a moral obligation. If we put moral codes aside for a moment, any moral premise would entail a moral obligation objectively if the objective element could be traceable to its objective ground, sort of what Wittgenstein did with truth in the Tratcatus…
Of course that would open the debate asking for the ontological nature of the “objective grounds” of moral similar to what Kant did in the 2nd critique and in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals (1785) and the Metaphysics of Morals (1797) after.
One example I'm thinking of is donating to charity. Most would agree that it is moral to donate to charity (with caveats as necessary), but I'm not sure that everyone would be of agreement that everyone has a moral obligation to donate to charity, or agree on how much one is morally obligated to donate. Is there a meaningful distinction between the two?
I think morality is objective, and moral obligations even more so. If morality was objective, then everybody would acknowledge the same morals (Perhaps not live up to them but that's something else). As we can see in the real world, moral differs from country to country and within countries from community to community.
Moral obligation is even more subjective. If it was objective, then you could measure it. Take the donation to charity example. If i would donate 5 euro to charity, have I fulfilled my moral obligation? Completely or partial? What's the measurement scale? And is the scale relative to my wealth or in absolute numbers? If it was objective, different people could measure it and come to the same conclusion every time. Assuming you could somehow realiably tell if if I had to donate in the first place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For those that agree in an objective basis to morality: Does the concept of moral obligation also have an objective moral basis?
For instance, how much is one morally obligated to give to charity? How much is one morally obligated to do for family? Friends? Complete strangers? Can these questions be in principle answered objectively, or is it a matter of opinion?
My own (not very well-informed) belief at the moment is that while morality is objective, the notion of moral obligation is not; it merely denotes an arbitrary minimum standard of morality to be deemed socially acceptable. The objective of moral action is to maximize morality, not to fulfill a minimal obligation. I don't know if this view is philosophically tenable, or what issues it may face, so I'm opening it up to the forum for scrutiny.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
To my opinion a possible solution would be that if you accept any objective basis to morality it would be a matter of finding the moral ground of any premise that would entail a moral obligation. If we put moral codes aside for a moment, any moral premise would entail a moral obligation objectively if the objective element could be traceable to its objective ground, sort of what Wittgenstein did with truth in the Tratcatus…
Of course that would open the debate asking for the ontological nature of the “objective grounds” of moral similar to what Kant did in the 2nd critique and in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals (1785) and the Metaphysics of Morals (1797) after.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Moral obligation is even more subjective. If it was objective, then you could measure it. Take the donation to charity example. If i would donate 5 euro to charity, have I fulfilled my moral obligation? Completely or partial? What's the measurement scale? And is the scale relative to my wealth or in absolute numbers? If it was objective, different people could measure it and come to the same conclusion every time. Assuming you could somehow realiably tell if if I had to donate in the first place.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.