[lit-ideas] Re: "A right and an obligation"
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:17:11 -0400 (EDT)
No. I disagree. I don't _think_ it's oxymoronic (as "rules and regulations"
is pleonastic). It may be at the core, or the core itself, of moral
philosophy.
It may require some Griceian reformulation or symbolisation, in terms of
operators, of the deontic kind, of the volitive (conative, desiderative)
type. I will think and re-consider.
I enjoyed Walter O.'s post, and will re-read. It may be good to consider
formulating these things.
I would think, as many sources will have it, that a 'right' and a 'duty'
are "two sides of the same coin". I don't know where this idiom originates --
and when it started to be used, rather badly, figuratively.
I would think Hegel's finding here would be that a Kantian morality (alla
Walter O.) requires a sort of synthesis:
THESIS: right -------- ANTITHESIS: obligation.
--------------SYNTHESIS: morality as we know it.
Or not.
Cheers,
Speranza
----
In a message dated 4/6/2013 6:00:54 P.M. UTC-02, omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx
writes:
I am recently hearing things such as: "We have a right and an obligation
to vote." Can something be both a right and an obligation ? It seems to me
that the concept of "right" entails a notion of choice (you can choose to do
it or not to do it) which the concept of obligation clearly does not. Any
opinions on this ?
O.K.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
