I've been thinking about what we mean by obligation, and I've come up with the following:
What is an obligation?
It is clear that obligation cannot be anything to do with being coerced by someone else into doing something. Next, we should note that obligation is not absolute. By that, I mean that it is possible for the same person in the same situation to have different obligations. For example, one nation may obligate someone to pay a fine for committing a given crime, and a different nation may obligate someone to work in community service for some time for committing the same crime. These are different obligations as a result of the same crime.
If so, it seems that obligation is determined by a given set of rules. If one set of rules dictates that in a given situation one must do something, then that person is obligated in that situation to do that thing according to that set of rules, while if another set of rules dictates that in this situation he must do something else, then that person is simultaneously obligated in that situation to that other thing according to the second set of rules. This is true even if the two obligations are contradictory.
Hence, in summary, we arrive at the following definition:
‘Obligation’ refers to being required to do something by a given set of rules.
Here I will adduce some examples to demonstrate my proposed definition.
- If somebody speeds and is told to pay a fine by the police, then he is obligated due to the set of rules that constitute the law in that country to pay the fine.
- If somebody promises to do something, then he is obligated due to the set of rules that constitute our understanding of morality to keep his word.
Is my understanding of obligation correct?