[lsbskins1]

Socital obligations start from a moral prospective. If you are claiming that there is no way to ever arrive at any moral concensus, I would disagree. You are, in my opinion, arguing from an ass-backwards point of view. You are trying to justify not doing what you don't want to do. Does society have an obligation to it's member to raise a police force to catch, stop and/or arrest murderers? I think the concensus opinion would be that it does. That being the case, there is such a thing as a sociatal obligation. Having established (hopefully) that there is such a thing, we now can move on to discussing the bounds and limits of those obligations, but to continue to claim that there is "no such thing" is to fly in the face of the facts on the ground and common sense.