- Morality insists moral obligation is directed by what to do, governed by moral reasons and concerned with a particular situation (45).
- There is no need to search for an obligation if there does not appear to be one.
- One should act in a certain way because it is the best way to get an outcome, not every consideration is an obligation itself.
- Moral obligation is a kind of practical conclusion (46).
- An action must be in an agent's power.
- It is questionable as to what it means for someone to act and what is in their power.
- Moral obligations cannot conflict (47).
- Prima-facie obligations are conclusions, supported by moral considerations, which are possible actual obligations.
- Moral obligation is inescapable (48).
- There is a grey area as to what a promise is to be considered, an obligation or voluntary.
- Blame is an inevitable characteristic first-personal reaction in morality (48).
- Blame is formed by internalization.
- It is possible for agents to never blame anyone due to skepticism of what is in another's power.
- Morality tries to make everything into obligations (50).
- Obligations do not have to win in a conflict with moral consideration.
- One is under no obligation to act for a cause nor do everything for a cause.
- Morality leads to wasting time doing things one has no obligation to (52).
- The importance of situations varies between people and can be seen in the relative sense (53).
- There is a distinction between importance and deliberative priority.
- Deliberative priority outweighs most other considerations and also occurs in our deliberation.
- The immediacy to oneself generates one's obligation (55).
- A conclusion of high priority and importance means one "must" do something and is called practical necessity (57).
- It may not be associated with other's expectations or blame as in morality(58).
- "Must" is now unconditional rather than morality's conditional.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Morality versus Luck
Conclusion: Luck presents a serious challenge to morality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How are you relating luck to this argument? I understand how moral obligation tries to force us to do things and because of this we end up thinking that the conclusion to all of situations is moral obligation. Moral obligation then wastes our time and forces us to do things that may not be very important but we think they are morally good for out own benefit. Does luck allow us to be removed from these moral obligations or does it make us more susceptible to feeling like we have a greater moral obligation? If we come across good luck then must we use the benefits to help someone else? Is tis our moral obligation?
ReplyDeleteOne of the points in premise 4 is telling us that "one is under no obligation to act for a cause nor do everything for a cause." If we follow this then we wouldn't have a moral obligation to help someone else when we come across good luck. However Premise 3 states that "Blame is formed by internalization" so one might feel guilty if they are lucky and try to help others when they have no obligation to. I'm not sure if that was the connection that Rebecca was trying to make but it seems to be where she was going. Overall I thought the post was good. #thumbsup
DeleteYou go in depth in explaining the role of moral obligation; however, my concern with this outline is how luck presents a challenge to morality. You strongly argue that morality insists on moral obligation, which is governed by the individual’s moral reasoning. However, what is left for interpretation is the role of luck. Are you trying to incorporate luck in premise 1 by suggesting that like in morality there is no moral obligation to search for it? In other words, luck is not something you search for. It just simply takes places when least expected. Yet, this does not clearly support your conclusion.
ReplyDelete