humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Feb 25, 6:44 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article <67fd9fd0-6cab-4d2c-ad8e-
> 69494bfc3...@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, cbel...@bellsouth.net
> says...

> > No, my argument is that "duty" is an anti-concept of something that
> > does not exist. Legal duty or other specific duties do have meaning
> > only insofar as they are voluntary obligations from self-interest.
>
> Such as the voluntary obligations that result from a promise - which
> you tell us it is not wrong to "lightly abrogate":


I did not say "it is not wrong to lightly abrogate"; so whatever you
might have to say making this false attribution is rather pointless.
I will say, however, as I have said in the past, anyone has the moral
right to break a contract at any time for any reason, if he is, as
always, willing to take full responsiblity for and suffer the
consequences of his actions.


What I said:


< I do not say "a promise creates a morally binding obligation." I
say it is moral, good and proper to enter into obligations that are
beneficial to oneself, and once entered, not lightly (but also not
impossibly) abrogated. There is nothing whatsoever "binding" one to an
obligation except for reason and causality, certainly not mystical
encumbrances or fanciful non-causal rewards and punishments. >