|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, if you're going to advocate positive rights you should at least address wateroverfire's question about the limits of personal duty to others. Why? Limits can change based on circumstance and time.
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Because "Sometimes, but not always, you are morally obligated to help other people. I dunno, it's hard, but if you don't help when I think you should, you are evil." is an unconvincing moral code. OK, good thing that is not what I said! Must "moral codes" always be deontological?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I asked if anyone was willing to address the question of the limits of personal obligation to the good of others, and your answer was that there was no reason to address that at all because it was situational. That is a weird rephrase of the actual words wateroverfire was using, but there is no need to make absolute claims of obligations because obligations could change based on circumstance or new information. Additionally how does one casually define all obligational limitations in the context of a broad discussion of rights? Do you expect quantification in the form of a single integer or mathematical formula? wateroverfire was insinuating that any obligation was problematic. Disagreement with that can occur without quantification unless... quote:So what exactly are you trying to say then? If you think that morality shouldn't be based on adherence to a set of rules, what is your alternative? You didn't answer the question about deontological rules. If those are the only rules we are discussing, then I must simply disagree with your definition of morality and the limit of the scope of the philosophical debate you are willing to have.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
So you would say that obligation is dependent on circumstance. Interesting
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 15:42
|
|