> It seems obviously better to take both actions than to take neither.
Not a judgment shared by many people. And not a course of action taken by many people. It seems that many people's moralities do output "it is better to let a person die than to help them and then beat them up".
> There is no precisely delineated good people’s club, that has its lines at obligations.
Sure there is. It's the club of people who aren't in jail.
Obligations are social constructs, like contracts and promises. Nobody thinks that contracts and promises are part of the fabric of the universe, so strong realism about them is false. But they are disregarded at your peril -- they are real enough to get you into trouble if you flout them.
Societies need bright lines about what people must do and must refrain from doing for a number of reasons. One is that co-ordination is enhanced, because everyone is following a shared set of
rules, not just their own judgement. Another is that it is unjust to punish people arbitrarily: if people are going to be punished at all, they need to know when they cross the line. And the fear of punishment is itself a useful motivation. If you leave it up to an individual to judge how much tax they pay, you don't gather much tax.
Obviously, where obligation is well-defined, so is supererogation.
> It seems obviously better to take both actions than to take neither.
Not a judgment shared by many people. And not a course of action taken by many people. It seems that many people's moralities do output "it is better to let a person die than to help them and then beat them up".
"Both of these reasons are incredibly persuasive and should convince any rational reader. Though some of my readers may be irrational"
I'm not sure this is How to Win Friends and Influence People. :-)
> There is no precisely delineated good people’s club, that has its lines at obligations.
Sure there is. It's the club of people who aren't in jail.
Obligations are social constructs, like contracts and promises. Nobody thinks that contracts and promises are part of the fabric of the universe, so strong realism about them is false. But they are disregarded at your peril -- they are real enough to get you into trouble if you flout them.
Societies need bright lines about what people must do and must refrain from doing for a number of reasons. One is that co-ordination is enhanced, because everyone is following a shared set of
rules, not just their own judgement. Another is that it is unjust to punish people arbitrarily: if people are going to be punished at all, they need to know when they cross the line. And the fear of punishment is itself a useful motivation. If you leave it up to an individual to judge how much tax they pay, you don't gather much tax.
Obviously, where obligation is well-defined, so is supererogation.