[lit-ideas] Re: "A right and an obligation"
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
________________________________
From: "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2013 5:38 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: "A right and an obligation"
In a message dated 4/7/2013 6:59:15 A.M. UTC-02, donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx
writes:
The claim that one has both a right and an obligation to vote makes sense
where it is being claimed, in effect, that one has both a legal right and a
moral obligation to vote. There is no contradiction between a 'right' and
an 'obligation' where these terms are being used to denote, respectively, a
legal position and a moral position.
Whereas to claim one has both a legal right and a legal obligation to vote
is more problematic: for to say an act is required as a matter of legal
obligation seemingly implies there is no legal 'right' or legal 'power' not
to comply with the duty, and so where there is a legal obligation we may say
that precludes that obligation being a legal 'right', as a legal 'right'
is not a legal obligation but a power in respect of which we have a choice
as to its exercise.
Omar K. should address McEvoy's points directly, but still.
*I went to vote, although with certain unease. :)
The insertion of "legal" for the right and "moral" for the obligation was of
course my own, those who say
that: "we have the right and the obligation to vote" don't usually bother to
distinguish. If the legal and the moral senses are clearly distinguished in
this manner, then the statement at least avoids a logical contradiction. It is
logically possible that I might have a legal right and a moral obligation to do
something, eg to help a sick person.
Still, I am not sure that the notion of "moral obligation" can be reasonably
applied to the case of voting. The act of voting itself implies a choice, and
if someone suggests that I have an obligation to vote, then they are limiting
my choices and interfering with my exercise of choice, even if they are not
explicitly saying who I should vote for. Further, in this case my choices were
limited to begin with by the fact that there are only two candidates, neither
of whom I view as accurately representing my political will. If this logic is
taken to the extreme, then it might be suggested that I have a "moral
obligation" to vote even in an election in which there is only one candidate.
Thanks all for the interesting comments so far.
O.K.
Other related posts:
