A lot of moral philosophers have said that we have a moral obligation to do x. But hold on there! Let’s back up a bit. The question that needs to be asked is why. Why do we have a moral obligation to do x? In fact, let’s take it one step further: why do we have moral obligations at all? I could imagine one responding back saying, “well, we should have moral obligations because. . . ” Well, hold on there. The “should” in that sentence already implies an obligation. In other words, it’s stating that we have a moral obligation to have a moral obligation. But then, why have that second order moral obligation. Again, the response could be “Well, we should have a moral obligation to have a moral obligation because. . .” and again it’s repeating itself. So the question remains: why do we have moral obligations? Should we have moral obligations? If so why, and to what?
Sexual Objectivity v… on Is There Such a Thing as… Sexual Objectivity v… on Raja Halwani’s “On… shaunmiller on Love: From Qualities to the… Michelle P on Love: From Qualities to the… thekillerj on Tennis and Pair Figure Skating…
- Abortion Aesthetics Animals Anti-Natalism Art Article Autonomy Benatar Book Review Books Camus Casual Sex Children Consent Culture Death Drugs Economics Education Emotions Environment Epistemology Ethics Evolution Family Feminism Food Free Will Gender Government Guns Health History Humor Incarceration Justice Language Law Libertarianism Logic Love Marriage Math Middle East Mind Monogamy Movies Music News Nietzsche Paper Topic Peter Singer Philosophy Politics Polyamory Pornography Promiscuity Prostitution Psychology Race Relationships Religion Rights Same-Sex Schopenhauer Science Sexuality Sexual Objectification Single Stoicism Studies Teaching Values War Will
Follow me on TwitterMy Tweets
Number of times this site has been visited:
- 149,063 hits