Obligation

When speaking about living a moral existence, it really breaks down to a sense of obligation. How much obligation do you feel towards others? How much obligation to yourself do you have? How much obligation ought you have towards others? Is your obligation only towards your family? Your immediate community? The world at large? How should we act because of our obligations? These questions validly affect our interactions and attitudes with those we meet and those we don't.

With so many questions, all intertwined, the best approach seems to be to divide the questions along to whom (or what) is a person obligated and what is the extent of this obligation.

Although some philosophers, Kant in particular, discount obligation, other philosophies seem based around the idea of obligation. Peter Singer, who inspired this entire topic, is a utilitarian whose writings strongly support the idea of obligation. When utilizing utilitarianism, it is possible to imagine a situation wherein one might calculate what will create the maximum amount of happiness, but that this action is an act against self-interest or desire. In this case, the person is still obligated to act upon the calculation, against their will. Singer is famous for taking utilitarianism to an extreme, claiming that all actions should be considered on a global scale. While we live in comfort, the argument goes, much of the world lives in extreme poverty. Small luxuries we afford ourselves would financially be enough support to drastically improve the life of someone living in extreme poverty. This argument calls for utilitarians to be obligated to all citizens of the world, not just themselves or those in their immediate surroundings. Further, Singer's work calls for a high level of obligation in that we should live with the bare minimum to be comfortable while giving the rest to others so that they may live with the same level of comfort. A counter argument to this large sense of global obligation often lies in the practical application - the philosophy is good in theory, but much harder to act upon completely in reality.

Hobbes, as has been brought up in earlier pieces, is often cited for his philosophical belief in self interest. Hobbes philosophy is actually based in the belief that we only have the obligation to obey the laws of nature. The major law of nature, aside from such things as the laws of physics, is that organisms must look out for their own well being; it is never in one's interest to fend for organisms outside one's self and perhaps one's brood. This view point would be considered the opposite of Singer and the utilitarians. Once one eliminates obligation, the question of amount of obligation becomes arbitrary. A good argument against Hobbes is the concept of mercy; Hobbes philosophy leaves no room for mercy or in many cases emotion in general. Hobbes philosophy can be considered egoist, isolating, and cold.

Hume falls somewhat between Singer and Hobbes in philosophical use of obligation. Hume divides the possible human actions into subcategories based upon whether the subject would commit the act naturally or must be artificially provoked, and whether the action fulfills a sense of duty or is committed for a different reason. As "natural" actions would happen due to self interest, they are excluded from the consideration of obligation. Within the remaining actions, Hume considers that obligation only exists where the subject wants to give the recipients pleasure. In this case, it is up to the person acting to determine whether or not a certain action is an obligation and to what degree it is an obligation. A person may decide that they wish to please the world, and thus move towards Singer's view point, or may decide that they only wish for their own happiness and move towards Hobbes's end of the spectrum. Further, not all decisions need make the same people pleased; a person may vary to whom they are obligated depending upon the act. The key to this philosophy is intent - if one intends to do something in order to make others happy, one is obligated. The glaring significant argument against this philosophy is that it really stands for very little, especially if it is combined with lying to one's self. One might not need to feel obligation, unless there is a desire to feel obligation.

Although all these philosophies address obligation in various ways, each is a drastically different take on the situation. In theory, each of these philosophies not only applies to obligation to people, but also obligation to larger community-type systems such as ecosystems.

What do you feel obligated to and why?


This blog post is based on "Feelings of Obligation" by William Neblett, "Famine, Affluence, and Poverty" by Peter Singer, "Hobbes's Concept of Obligation" by Thomas Nagel, and "Hume's Account of Obligation" by Bernard Wand.