Anyhow, you didn't answer the questions above. If duties are just imperative statements, who is making these statements? — Count Timothy von Icarus
I didn't say that. Consequences and obligations are related. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Duties are indeed something like the "imperative demands" of society as a whole, or of institutions, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus
They are not just like imperative demands though because they define normative goods like "being a good citizen" or "being a good basketball player." — Count Timothy von Icarus
It's not divine command theory, but it is a command theory. Ought-claims are commands phrased as if they were truth-apt propositions. — Michael
I don't understand what this means. Is this a physical compulsion? A , psychological compulsion? — Michael
Because you engage in the circular claim "you ought do what this authority tells you to do". I want to know what the "you ought" part of this sentence means. A reference back to this authority is no explanation at all. — Michael
I addressed this here. All this talk of "violating obligations" and "being bound" is vacuous and superfluous. It is just the case that the law says "anyone who is found guilty of murder is to be imprisoned". We then choose to murder or not with this knowledge in mind, and will inevitably face whatever consequences follow if we choose to murder. There's nothing more to it. — Michael
Which just means that I agree to do what some outside authority says. — Michael
What you want is an explanation why we ought to do things. — Tobias
No, it's not. I want to know what "you ought do this" means. I don't know why I need to keep repeating this? — Michael
Being obliged is different from being commanded, because a command is uttered by whim of the commanding entity while an obligation is incurred by following specific procedures, such as promising or contracting etc. — Tobias
What I do not understand is why you would hold on to a theory that does not explain a certain distinction we all feel that is relevant in favour of a theory that cannot make heads or tails of it. — Tobias
Legitimate authority. I do not know what you really want, as an explanation, but as I said one can only explain by reference to certain kind of distinctions. — Tobias
a command is uttered by whim of the commanding entity while an obligation is incurred by following specific procedures — Tobias
We take the command “do this”, we phrase it as the truth-apt proposition “you ought do this”, and then we believe in the existence of some abstract entity - the “obligation” — Michael
So you are chasing your own tail when you ask what 'ought' means? — Tobias
You wrote the subsidized check on the basis of a promise - a real promise that involved obligations. Without those obligations it would make no sense to write the subsidized check, and given the promise it makes no sense not to invoke it when he says you underpaid. — Leontiskos
That bold is going to make this thread pages and pages more of nonsense until it's sorted.I am saying that I don't know what "Orestes had an obligation" means. I am asking you what it means and you appear to be doing everything in your power to avoid answering. — Michael
You could (and please don't take this is prickly... it really is not) — AmadeusD
This is also true. This speaks to our previous fracas but not directly. You can establish the existence of some 'obligation' in the sense of "you promised X" happened in time. You cannot establish "the promise" as it's own entity(this to me seems beyond discussion. — AmadeusD
There is no logical compass that lands on "fulfill your promises". — AmadeusD
This I really cannot follow. At what time does it exist then? There is a moment it existed and was real and then, poof, it is gone? And when is the decision actually made, when it is made in my head or when it is uttered? I think one would prefer a theory that avoids such questions... I also actually would not know what is implied with it. The decision can be undone at any time? If it cannot and you are still bound to the decision, what is it then that binds?That's only ever going to be relevant case-by-case and is, in fact, a moral decision which only exists at the moment it is made. — AmadeusD
What is the promise? There is no possible answer to this without simply describing something else (a brainstate, a decision, or one's personally 'ought' motivation - Banno likes to fulfill promises, it seems. Fine). — AmadeusD
It does not create an obligation beside you wanting to keep your promise, as it were. It is yours. It isn't 'out there' as anything. — AmadeusD
Well, the answer there is pretty simple. You see an obstacle he (we) don't. Is that a bit more diplomatic here? — AmadeusD
Even though we still disagree, it is in any case a lot nicer to answer this post, so I do appreciate your effort at diplomacy :flower: :wink:Is that a bit more diplomatic here? — AmadeusD
Because he told me to, and it's rational to pay less if the person asking you for money asks for less. — Michael
Then suppose you invoke the promise and he says, "Oh sorry, I forgot about that. Never mind." — Leontiskos
You say that his word is good enough to write the check for $975, but it is not good enough for you to invoke when he says you underpaid. You are contradicting yourself. You wrote the subsidized check on the basis of a promise - a real promise that involved obligations. Without those obligations it would make no sense to write the subsidized check, and given the promise it makes no sense not to invoke it when he says you underpaid. — Leontiskos
Why is it clearly not the case? Because we use the sentence "you ought not kill"? I think it's far simpler to just interpret this as the phrase "don't kill". You haven't actually explained what makes the former any different, you just reassert the claim that we ought (not) do things. — Michael
What these last two pages look like is Michael wants a reason to think obligations exist outside the internal emotional state of having chosen to hold oneself to that intent.
You could do the exact same thing with "do flowers exist." — Count Timothy von Icarus
It is, but I dislike using shorthand. — Tobias
I think that is a metaphysical assumption that one need not make. — Tobias
I think that is a metaphysical assumption that one need not make. — Tobias
It needs no logical compass. It simply needs a society in which one expect from one another that one fulfills his promises. — Tobias
The fact that some concept is dependent on our societal interaction doesn't make it any less real. — Tobias
We live in a world with doors, similarly, we live in a world with marriages — Tobias
it is also different from: "rules made by a competent authority" — Tobias
Than indeed, there is no marriage anymore. — Tobias
At what time does it exist then? — Tobias
I think one would prefer a theory — Tobias
The decision can be undone at any time? If it cannot and you are still bound to the decision, what is it then that binds? — Tobias
It is not Banno that holds Banno accountable. — Tobias
I would really not know why one would hold a position that cannot make sense of obligations. — Tobias
legally — Tobias
My position comes down to what I know as 'interactionism' — Tobias
ou need to hold on to all kinds of obscure positions, namely that a promise exists one moment and stops existing the next or that a promise should really be conceived of as a brain state or that an obligation only reaches as far as I am willing to be bound to the promise. — Tobias
Michael apparently thinks it does not matter whether one is ordered by a gang of robbers or whether one is taxed by legitimate authorities. — Tobias
Purely on a legal mind-to-legal mind basis, what do you mean here? Is the assertion that there is some kind of legal principle which actually transcends human minds? I have never been able to get on board with anything remotely close to "natural law" type arguments so Im really curious.reality ;) of legal principles — Tobias
You know it is rational to invoke your landlord's promise, and you would do so in real life — Leontiskos
You could do the exact same thing with "do flowers exist." — Count Timothy von Icarus
A. Nope. You haven't explained what a flower is at all. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Fragile? :rofl: What an idiotic inference; what makes you think I care about some random ad hominem projections beyond making the effort to call them out for what they are? I'm not interested in participating in your silly game of one-upmanship. — Janus
Well, seems to me that the obligation exists beyond the act of making the promise. That is, to make a promise is to place oneself under an obligation. — Banno
Now that obligation is not physical. It is not "floating around". But it does exist. — Banno
It is a promise, it is an obligation. — Banno
the undertaking of an obligation — Banno
Not nothing. — Banno
and again the promise exists. — Banno
is the promise the sum of all the brain states of everyone who has heard of it? — Banno
I gather that you would like to argue that promises are brain states? — Banno
a similar structure that each and every person that has heard of the promise has in their brain? — Banno
And what ab out written promises, or audio recordings - are these also promises? And how does the promise move from one page to another? If it is a physical state, then the nature of that state is quite irresolute. — Banno
The promise seems to be something quite apart from any such physical state. Isn't it more a construction, put together by people using language to get things done? Isn't it a way of undertaking an obligation in a social and linguistic context? — Banno
But why shouldn't we talk of such things as existing? Along with money, property, friendship, and so much more. We live in a complex of social constructs. — Banno
I agree. Mostly in the mind. Shared delusions don't cause things to exist.We live in a complex of social constructs. — Banno
Because legal support exists. Otherwise, no one in their right mind would go to a landlord and try to hold them to their word. — AmadeusD
Then suppose you invoke the promise and he says, "Oh sorry, I forgot about that. Never mind."
Is he being irrational in this? Is he deluded and engaged in bullshit?
You say that his word is good enough to write the check for $975, but it is not good enough for you to invoke when he says you underpaid. You are contradicting yourself. You wrote the subsidized check on the basis of a promise - a real promise that involved obligations. Without those obligations it would make no sense to write the subsidized check, and given the promise it makes no sense not to invoke it when he says you underpaid.
The point here is not that the landlord must, of absolute necessity, honor his promise. That is a strawman form of obligation. The point is that it is rational for him to do so, and therefore it is rational for you to invoke the promise when he says you underpaid, and therefore it is rational for you to write the check for $975 in the first place.
This sort of thing happens all the time in real life. Compare this to a different person who writes a check for $975 for no reason. Do they have recourse? Of course not. They are in an entirely different situation. The only difference between the two cases is an obligation. — Leontiskos
Nonsense. — Leontiskos
Here is the whole post: — Leontiskos
Is he being irrational in this? Is he deluded and engaged in bullshit? — Leontiskos
I read the whole post. — AmadeusD
Before tenancy enforcement infrastructure, you would be an absolute moron to try to 'force' your landlord's hand. — AmadeusD
The point here is not that the landlord must, of absolute necessity, honor his promise. That is a strawman form of obligation. The point is that it is rational for him to do so, and therefore it is rational for you to invoke the promise when he says you underpaid, and therefore it is rational for you to write the check for $975 in the first place. — Leontiskos
... you intend to place yourself under an obligation to do that thing ... — Janus
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.