You could think of a promise as an act prolonged through time, just like the turning on of a light. — Leontiskos
Which still needs to be explained. Why won't you ever explain this? — Michael
I've bolded the part that caught my eye. I think Austin and Searle are embarked on just the enterprise described. But they are not interested so much in prohibiting murder and sodomy - so far as I know - so much in providing a description of the social role played by our utterances, of how we do things with words.There is another possibility here: "obligation" may be contractual. Just as we look at the law to find out what a man subject to it is required by it to do, so we look at a contract to find out what the man who has made it is required by it to do. Thinkers, admittedly remote from us, might have the idea of a foedus rerum, of the universe not as a legislator but as the embodiment of a contract. Then if you could find out what the contract was, you would learn your obligations under it. Now, you cannot be under a law unless it has been promulgated to you; and the thinkers who believed in "natural divine law" held that it was promulgated to every grown man in his knowledge of good and evil. Similarly you cannot be in a contract without having contracted, i.e. given signs of entering upon the contract. Just possibly, it might be argued that the use of language which one makes in the ordinary conduct of life amounts in some sense to giving the signs of entering into various contracts. If anyone had this theory, we should want to see it worked out. I suspect that it would be largely formal; it might be possible to construct a system embodying the law (whose status might be compared to that of "laws"of logic): "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," but hardly one descending to such particularities as the prohibition on murder or sodomy. Also, while it is clear that you can be subject to a law that you do not acknowledge and have not thought of as law, it does not seem reasonable to say that you can enter upon a contract without knowing that you are doing so; such ignorance is usually held to be destructive of the nature of a contract. — Anscombe, Modern Moral Philosophy, p.12
Your girlfriend may well have intended to marry you, and this may have been so were it expressed or not. But she went further, making a promise, and thereby she also committed to marrying you, undertook doing so, binding herself to marrying you and placed herself under an obligation.
And all of that is a result of her having made the promise. It was an act done by her in making the utterance. One amongst many, many other acts we perform in making utterances - naming ships, asking questions, issuing demands or orders - and undertaking obligations. — Banno
For just as a man by commanding or praying, directs, in a fashion, what others are to do for him, so by promising he directs what he himself is to do for another. — Aquinas, ST II-II.88.1 Whether a vow consists in a mere purpose of the will?
I suspect Anscombe may have agreed with you — Banno
Just because obligations cease to be doesn't mean they never were, right? — Moliere
I re-read MMP this morning and was again in awe of the complexity of her thinking. Better not to assume, so I went with "may". She almost certainly would have had much more to say on the issue, and I don't think she had a soft spot for Austin.I don't think so. — Leontiskos
There is something of Moore's paradox here. — Banno
The reason I never really think Michael is being sincere is because he is never willing to do any of the leg work. How many times have we told him that to intend something is not yet to promise it, only to be met with mute silence? — Leontiskos
I guess you're asking what "obligation" is supposed to be adding to the act of uttering a promise. — frank
As a comparison, consider these two propositions:
1. You will love this movie
2. I promise you that you will love this movie
What does the addition of "I promise you that" add? Not much. It's more of an emphasis; an expression of certainty. — Michael
No, it means your role entails a duty to perform that action. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Sure. What the complaint here, that the claim that "lifeguard's primary purpose is to prevent drownings," has no truth value? — Count Timothy von Icarus
I'm finding it hard to believe that you cannot parse the meaning of sentences like: "soldiers are obligated to report all instances of sexual assault to their superior officers." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Here are two sentences:
1. You ought do this
2. Do this
The first appears to be a truth-apt proposition, whereas the second isn’t. But beyond this appearance I cannot make sense of a meaningful difference between them. The use of the term “ought” seems to do nothing more than make a command seem like a truth-apt proposition. It’s make-believe a la fictionalism. — Michael
As in, "If I don't build the house on time then some authority will fine me."
This is true if in the terms of the contract. But this does not prima facie entail "I ought build the house" (or "I ought pay the fine"). — Michael
I think obligation is something people feel sometimes. "He didn't want to go to the party, but he felt obligated.". Or it could be something that people in the area believe. "Most Americans believed he was obliged to resign.". It's just describing how people feel or attitudes they have. — frank
I've offered my own understanding of obligations; they are commands treated as if they were truth-apt propositions, but as commands are not truth-apt propositions obligations are a fiction, and barely even sensible. — Michael
1. You will love this movie
2. I promise you that you will love this movie — Michael
What does "if someone is drowning then you have a duty to jump into the water and save their life" mean?
Does it just mean "if someone is drowning then jump into the water and save their life" but phrased as if it were a truth-apt proposition? — Michael
I’m not really sure how your comments are related to mine? I am simply asking what “obligation” means, and how the sincere use of the verb “promise” entails an obligation. — Michael
Likewise, one can be a nominalist without denying that triangles exist. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I think obligation is something people feel sometimes. "He didn't want to go to the party, but he felt obligated.". Or it could be something that people in the area believe. "Most Americans believed he was obliged to resign.". It's just describing how people feel or attitudes they have.
— frank
There are of course multiple senses in which we use the word obliged. One indeed often feel obliged to do x. But consider the difference between these two sentences: "He felt obliged to go to the party" and "he was obliged to go to the party". They are not the same sentences, but in your account of obligation they are. That is because you think an obligation is subjective. The obligation though has an objective side to it. We are bound to certain acts and that bind we call an obligation. They arise out of certain procedures, being you signing a contract, or a legislator promulgating a law. — Tobias
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.