Moral Obligation
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I have the moral obligation not to impose my will upon others without their consent.
Likewise I have the moral obligation to oppose those who try to impose their will upon others without their consent.
You desire other people to supply you with their definition of "moral obligation" so you can attack their definitions of not only morality but also the meaning of "obligation". Well, the way I see things the only honest thing for you to do is post your personal definitions of morality and obligations first before demanding other answer your questions. So, go ahead and supply your definitions.
I think this is the crux of the matter- why people here think so differently than I do about many issues. I don't want to skew their responses by giving my own.
That poses a real dilemma.
I could carry Covid and not not know a thing about it. If I was the only one at risk, then I would not see this as a problem, I would carry on with life as normal. But the risk with Covid is unknowingly passing it on.
If we adhere to the lockdown rules, this puts our economy at risk, so business, hospitals, education, police and all the social structures will also collapse.
I am 71 and classed as being vulnerable in the UK, so I am higher up on the priority list for vaccination. I strongly disagree with this, I have lived my life, I really feel the younger generation should get the vaccine first. I want my children and grandchildren to experience life, I don't want them living in fear and isolation.
Just my thoughts.
Right Divider
Body part
Have you ever looked at the demographics of people that die from COVID-19?
That which I bolded is a lie. There is no asymptomatic transmission. Even the CDC admits this. But, the mockingbird media will not publish this news.
Asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 didn’t occur at all, study of 10 million finds - LifeSite
Only 300 asymptomatic cases in the study of nearly 10 million were discovered, and none of those tested positive for COVID-19.
www.lifesitenews.com
Why people think differently than you do has nothing to do with any moral obligations. It has everything to do with how widely people read. You stick 100% to the mockingbird media which has been lying to all of us for decades. And as long as you believe only the mockingbird media you will continue to have false beliefs on this subject.
When I was working and knew I could spread the flu, I stayed home. I didn't go out to make others sick. I go out now without masks or practicing social distancing because I know I have a prophylaxis that works. And even more as asymptomatic people do not spread the coronavirus I couldn't infect anyone else. Even if I were infected as I would stay home just like I did when I've had the flu.
You and your moral obligations are nothing but a result of your belief in a whole lot of falsehoods. There is no moral failing when people who are not sick go where they please.
You skew people's responses by refusing to consider all the evidence people put in front of you.
Bradley D
Well-known member
Doing something that comes from the heart/God inspired not the law.
"MORAL OBLIGATION. A duty which one owes, and which he ought to perform, but which he is not legally bound to fulfill. 2. These obligations are of two kinds 1st. Those founded on a natural right; as, the obligation to be charitable, which can never be enforced by law."
"MORAL OBLIGATION. A duty which one owes, and which he ought to perform, but which he is not legally bound to fulfill. 2. These obligations are of two kinds 1st. Those founded on a natural right; as, the obligation to be charitable, which can never be enforced by law."
Perhaps- but you have neatly avoided actually answering my question. This thread isn't even about COVID.
OKdoser managed to give a straight response.
***shakes head in wonder***
I've already said why I have not answered your question. That's not a "neatly avoiding answering" your question. I've seen you argue against a bunch of things and then say you're not actually arguing against them. In other words dodge responsibility for your statements. You have a "moral obligation" to post honestly which you have avoided again and again. You have created the distrust you face with your own behavior. That's why you need to publish your own ideas of "moral obligation".
You publishing your own idea of "moral obligation" is not to avoid influencing others ideas on "moral obligation" because you stating your definition doesn't affect anyone else's definition other than some completely unstable person who cannot think on their own. So is that your idea of everyone that posts here?
What you're claiming is that if I tell you my definition of moral obligation I'm influencing your definition of moral obligation. That's pure nonsense. It's actually a claim that some anonymous guy on the internet affects anyone who reads his ideas, and is always changing someone else's ideas just by them reading his ideas. Anyone that unstable is going to be going in circles at all times. His beliefs are going to change with every post he reads.
So, be honest and just state your concept of moral obligation.
Here is a part of my definition of moral obligation: You have a moral obligation to listen to and investigate every claim made in the following video because everyone has a moral obligation to study both sides of a question if they are going to make an intelligent, honest, decision.
Absolutely not. Quite the opposite.
If I tell you what I think about moral obligation- you will say "oh yeah, I meant that too!"- and add it to your list.
But guess what- you are not obliged to answer.
Since OK is the only one who actually answered the question, I will respond to him.
When I think of "moral obligation", I think of many things. Like an obligation to help others- for example: charity, helping people get jobs, taking care of the sick and elderly, helping my elderly parents, supporting those who are oppressed (which is similar to what you wrote). Or an obligation to society, i.e. to follow the rules that help keep life rolling long- even simple things like paying taxes and obeying traffic laws. I think of obligations to my community, to my family. I have an obligation to be self supporting, if I am able to be.
I expect that you will agree with me on most, if not all of the things that I listed. Yet when asked- you only responded with the items relating to freedom. Do you really view that as the only moral obligation that you have?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
My moral obligation can be summarized as follows:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Now that you've at least given a partial explanation of your "moral obligation" I will answer your question.
My first obligation related to morality is to be honest in every part and action in my life, for Jesus was honest in all things. If I am dishonest I am harming others for dishonesty is what put this planet into a state of rebellion against God and into a reality of pain, suffering, misery, death, etc... I have a moral obligation to be honest and to follow my Savior and God in all things and to oppose all things that flow from God's great enemy. That is my foremost moral obligation. Honesty is the first principle of God's love, and the opposite of the principles of God's enemy
My second most important moral obligation is to my wife and family. I must put them above all others for a man that doesn't support his family is not following God.
My third most important moral obligation is to support and help my Christian brothers and sisters with as much as I have left over. This moral obligation can be found in the early Christian church for they held all things in common so that all of them would have what was needed. They supported each other after they had taken care of their own families. This is why Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead because they lied about what they were going to donate to the church structure. So this is something that our heavenly Father is very serious about.
If I have anything left over after fulfilling the above obligations then I am to help my neighbors, after that my community. A large part of these first four moral obligations is to live so that I treat others the way I want to be treated myself. You know, the Golden Rule as described by Jesus.
In other areas of life I am to stand for God, for His word, and defend it and follow it. I am to trust God for the power and ability to do that. God, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, is the source of that ability and power. I am not responsible for how others respond to what God asks me to say. That is the job of Holy Spirit He is the one who convinces the world of truth, righteousness and sin. I am to do nothing more than to plant the seed of truth. If someone else gets the credit for the harvest, what is that to me? I did what I was asked. Neither am I responsible if others reject truth.
Thank you.
I am sometimes disturbed about how some Christians don't seem to care much about what happens to other Christians around the world, so I am glad that you mentioned it.
I'm curious as to what you mean by "community". Do you take that as referring to a geographic community? I would think of it as relating to a Church group, for example.
The community in which I live. My fellow church members and Christians come before those outside of my Christian family.
I do not consider taxes charity. Charity is not forced or imposed on me from outside forces. Charity must come from the heart and be a free will gift to my fellow man. If it is not that then it does not fulfill God's concept of charity, love for my fellow man. My charity must work to destroy the selfishness found in my own heart, and thus flow from my heart to others in a personal way. A personal relationship. Read the story of the Good Samaritan to understand the concept.
Taxation limits the resources I have to help my fellow man. Government is so corrupt that they spend my tax money poorly. We, the government and I, have vastly different ideas as to how my money should be applied and to whom it should go. An example of that is I do not think that money should be given directly to addicts. As an example. I would buy them groceries rather than directly supplying them with funds. With the self-destructiveness of an addict they will most likely spend their money in exactly the wrong way. They will feed their addiction before they will feed their family. They spend it on that which destroys them rather than making good use of resources and as a result their family will go without what they need.
This is why I despise socialism so much. It is an ideology that takes the joy of giving and makes it burdensome. And it falsely gets people to assume they have practiced charity when they have paid their taxes. It separates them and the people they think they have "helped". They haven't actually "helped" anyone. They have no idea as to how their money has been used, and they have no idea as to who received what and why. They have just unloaded their responsibility and privilege onto faceless bureaucrats, and if you've never dealt with government bureaucrats you have no idea as to the attitudes many of them take to those they "help". Their attitudes towards the needy are such that they often make those who need help feel shamed rather than loved. That's why charity must flow from an individual's heart rather than a government's bureaucracy. The recipient and the giver must understand that any help given comes directly from the love God has placed in the heart of the giver.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
As opposed to a legal obligation I guess. I don't believe there are ethical obligations, though there are certainly conditional ethical obligations (e.g. if you want to reap a harvest you better sow some seed). Legal obligations that are not also moral obligations are temporary, while moral obligations are eternal. Morality concerns how we treat each other, i.e., other people. All morals are or are attached to moral obligations. We are morally obliged or obligated to for example, not falsely testify against someone under oath. There is also moral obligation or moral duty to protect innocent people from murderers and rapists. Because our laws are largely good, there is also legal obligation to do or to not do these examples, but moral obligation precedes legal obligation. Legal obligation also involves contracts between private parties, but abiding by the terms of such a contract is not morally obligatory.
This all is using the word moral to apply to how we treat each other, and ethics to apply to how we live our best life, which is more about materiality rather than about absolute and transcendent moral principles, viz., our natural human rights. Morals and ethics are related to each other, such that being immoral forfeits being ethical, but one can be completely moral and still not be ethical, when we do things ourselves that are against our best material interests, which isn't to limit it to just possessions, but also to the quality of our personal relationships, which does suggest that ethics might also be concerned with how we treat others, but it's for different reasons. It might be unethical to dismiss someone and what they're saying, if it leads to a lesser outcome for us, but it isn't the same thing as violating someone's human rights.
A moral obligation is an internal obligation to do what is right/good.
For example in the context of COVID, I have a moral obligation to figure out if academics, politicians, and the MSM is telling the truth about COVID. As it turns out, they were lying, which creates a new obligation to help those suffering because of those lies and to oppose those that are telling the lies.