2 ms·
> 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. Y
by 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 agoI 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 agoA political theory has been presented several times now: Asserting "You must <insert expectation>" does not create an obligation. While you have put in every effort to skirt around the theory, my take is that you must reject it. Your replies would not fit otherwise. On the basis of that that assumption, - You are now obligated to make me lunch. I have asserted that you must do it. But what does that mean? We both know you aren't actually going to do it. You aren't going to feel remorse when you don't do it. You will suffer no consequences if you don't do it. What, exactly, is trying to be communicated with the word "obligation"? Per the dictionary, one must be compelled into an obligation. It is being compelled that adds sufficient information to justify the use of the word in that context. But where does it find information under your pet definition?
- davorak 2y ago> A political theory has been presented several times now: Asserting "You must <insert expectation>" does not create an obligation. You can call this a political/government theory, but it does not move the conversation forward. How does a government work under this theory? What makes a legitimate government, when is rebellion the morally correct choice, what is the right to rule, etc under this theory. You do not need to layout everything at once but you would need to lay out enough to connect it to the and to my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560855 And the conversation needs to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, at least for me to go forward it.
- 9rx 2y ago> How does a government work under this theory? It sometimes doesn't. Governments have failed many times throughout history. But assuming a typical state of government affairs: Obligation. An obligation to oneself, to one's peers, and perhaps even to force. One is normally compelled to see government work – because they want it to, or, at very least, are afraid of the consequences if it doesn't. None of that seems to apply in this case, though. So, again, if you remove the concept of being compelled, what is "obligation" trying to communicate?