Quote:
|
Quote by: 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. |
Not sure if you're answering me or the start of the thread, so here goes...
Quote:
|
Societal 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.
|
Where we should get our concept of "obligation" is quite subjective. But where do we get it from, historically and other wise? I argue the opposite: quite concrete, sometimes far too concrete. It's a little too easy for society to arrive at a consensus to... burn witches, label everyone who disagrees with them as commies, crucify a savior, demonize Jews... one can even find a connection between what good portions of society condemn and how some may feel this turns into an "obligation" to nail Gays to fences in Texas or burn down African-American churches...
The use of "obligation" seems like marching orders to me. Living in the South as I have for many years I imagine that some communities not too far from where I live led people to believe it was their "obligation" to wear sheets and pointy white hats.
So the question comes back to whose morals? My morals? The bible? The term "obligation" seems an invite not to think for oneself but blindly follow.
Quote:
|
Does society have an obligation to it's member to raise a police force to catch, stop and/or arrest murderers?
|
I would say yes, for the most part. What if the policeman chases down what winds up being a case of mistaken identity and ends up causing an accident? The officers at Waco believed, were told, there were children being abused and might be killed by a self-sacrificial cult with dangerous, illegal, weapons. Yet many who argue "obligation" now condemn these same people. Things get sloppy and less firm when looking at the much reviled revealer of truth:
nuance.
No such thing?
No, I think we need to be a lot more careful about declaring what is and isn't an "obligation," and I'm very interested in what obligations society has towards it's members. In a free society people should never be owned by the state.
"Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" is meaningless if forced down the throats of a populace owned or enslaved by the state. Unless the state is dedicated to keeping members safe
and free, obligation is but slavery performed by serfs.