Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Is the Concept of Obligation Moralized?

  • Published:
Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conceptual jurisprudence is concerned to explicate the concept of law and other concepts central to core legal practices, as we understand them. The centrality of obligation-talk to legal practice is obvious, as the very point of litigation is to resolve disputes regarding the obligations of the various parties. In this essay, I argue that the general concept of obligation – of which social, legal, and moral obligation are subtypes – includes a conceptual moral constraint. Just as only a very good person can count as a “saint,” only a system of norms that satisfies certain moral norms can count as giving rise to “obligations.” Accordingly, I argue, as a conceptual matter, that only those institutional systems of social norms that satisfy some threshold level of moral respectability have the capacity to create obligations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth Einar Himma.

Additional information

I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer for comments that enabled me to greatly improve the arguments in this essay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Himma, K.E. Is the Concept of Obligation Moralized?. Law and Philos 37, 203–227 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-017-9311-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-017-9311-7

Navigation