3 ms·

> It would be fair to say that these things are symbols representing people This is built in to the normal context of the topic. When people talk about the con

> It would be fair to say that these things are symbols representing people This is built in to the normal context of the topic. When people talk about the constitution in this situations people are not talking about a piece of paper with writing on it. > Like, as in the citizens that voted for him? ... They have not (to this point) established the obligation. Can you layout the existing cases for him being obligated? You are not addressing any of the common/standard political theory arguments for it here. I can not tell what sort of political theory or government you are proposing here either so I can not respond to that. >> Let's separate that from enforcement mechanisms. > You can't, really. Without motivation, there is no obligation. This seems like it is a semantics issue. ": the action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow)[1] Yeah All presidents do that when they take their oath. "1. a moral or legal requirement; duty" [2] yeah that applies too. "An obligation is a course of action which someone is required to take, be it a legal obligation or a moral obligation. Obligations are constraints; they limit freedom. People who are under obligations may choose to freely act under obligations. Obligation exists when there is a choice to do what is morally good and what is morally unacceptable.[1] There are also obligations in other normative contexts, such as obligations of etiquette, social obligations, religious, and possibly in terms of politics, where obligations are requirements which must be fulfilled. These are generally legal obligations, which can incur a penalty for non-fulfilment, although certain people are obliged to carry out certain actions for other reasons as well, whether as a tradition or for social reasons." [3] Yeah that applies to the presidential case too. So you are not using obligation in 100% typical fashion. You really seem to be using obligation as a synonym for ~"enforcement mechanism" or maybe "enforced action" and more often than not that is not how I have seen it used both in everyday life and political theory. I think you are breezing over the existing "enforcement mechanism" and consequences or at least potential consequences for situations like this as well. That maybe because you have a political theory, that is not laid out here, that covers/makes that obvious though. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obligation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obligation [2] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/obligation https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/obligat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligation

9rx 2y ago
> This is built in to the normal context of the topic. If the people involved believe in it and are willing to uphold it. It doesn't mean anything otherwise. You don't become obligated just because someone says so. > Yeah All presidents do that when they take their oath. An oath assumes that the actor will cast judgement upon themself if they violate its intent. That goes out the window if the person doesn't care. You don't become obligated just because someone says so. While many people do believe in an oath, giving it utility, not all people do. If they did, you could deal with all social problems with oaths. But the world is not so simple, I'm afraid. > There are also obligations in other normative contexts, such as obligations of etiquette, social obligations, religious, and possibly in terms of politics, where obligations are requirements which must be fulfilled. Again, that only applies if all parties share the same norms, etiquette, and social expectations. Without that, there is no obligation. You don't become obligated just because someone says so. > These are generally legal obligations, which can incur a penalty for non-fulfilment, although certain people are obliged to carry out certain actions for other reasons as well There are legal directives on paper, which may be what is confusing you, but paper is inanimate. Obligations can only be to people. There is no sign of people offering the motivation necessary for those laws to become obligations. You don't become obligated just because someone (or something) says so. > So you are not using obligation in 100% typical fashion. I am using it as defined by the dictionary, but perhaps you have your own pet definition? It seems you believe that all I have to say is: "You must make me lunch from now on!" and an obligation has been made. -- I fail to find any utility in that definition. > You really seem to be using obligation as a synonym for ~"enforcement mechanism" No. Not at all. The previous president was obligated without enforcement. He was compelled by his inner desire to do the right thing. The current president does not have that. It is true that enforcement is probably the only thing that would compel an obligation in this specific case, but that is not a precondition on the word, just the reality of the situation we are discussing.
- davorak 2y ago
  I need a political/government theory and/or for the conversation to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, to go forward at this point.

9rx 2y ago

> This is built in to the normal context of the topic. If the people involved believe in it and are willing to uphold it. It doesn't mean anything otherwise. You don't become obligated just because someone says so. > Yeah All presidents do that when they take their oath. An oath assumes that the actor will cast judgement upon themself if they violate its intent. That goes out the window if the person doesn't care. You don't become obligated just because someone says so. While many people do believe in an oath, giving it utility, not all people do. If they did, you could deal with all social problems with oaths. But the world is not so simple, I'm afraid. > There are also obligations in other normative contexts, such as obligations of etiquette, social obligations, religious, and possibly in terms of politics, where obligations are requirements which must be fulfilled. Again, that only applies if all parties share the same norms, etiquette, and social expectations. Without that, there is no obligation. You don't become obligated just because someone says so. > These are generally legal obligations, which can incur a penalty for non-fulfilment, although certain people are obliged to carry out certain actions for other reasons as well There are legal directives on paper, which may be what is confusing you, but paper is inanimate. Obligations can only be to people. There is no sign of people offering the motivation necessary for those laws to become obligations. You don't become obligated just because someone (or something) says so. > So you are not using obligation in 100% typical fashion. I am using it as defined by the dictionary, but perhaps you have your own pet definition? It seems you believe that all I have to say is: "You must make me lunch from now on!" and an obligation has been made. -- I fail to find any utility in that definition. > You really seem to be using obligation as a synonym for ~"enforcement mechanism" No. Not at all. The previous president was obligated without enforcement. He was compelled by his inner desire to do the right thing. The current president does not have that. It is true that enforcement is probably the only thing that would compel an obligation in this specific case, but that is not a precondition on the word, just the reality of the situation we are discussing.

davorak 2y ago
I need a political/government theory and/or for the conversation to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, to go forward at this point.