Talk:Obligation

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 October 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sheneilriley4. Peer reviewers: Ly-So99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need to define financial "obligations"

The article omits one of the most common and concrete "obligations" -- financial obligations. Unfortunately, I lack the expertise to write it ...

Status of obligation.

If obligation is not observable in a state of affairs, then it arises by ascription or utterance. Simply ascribing (i.e. writing to - from the Latin 'ad scribere') obligation to B doesn't establish the state of affairs where B is obliged and therefore doesn't establish the truth of the sentence 'B is obliged' just as simply saying "The cat is sitting on the mat" doesn't establish the state of affairs where the cat is sitting on the mat and therefore doesn't establish the truth of the sentence 'The cat is sitting on the mat'. The process is one of magical incantation i.e. saying it's so makes it so. Ash138.217.214.135 (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good-faith edit that I reverted

An editor added the following text from the lead, which I do not understand

1 define obligaton matter of a single person (vs) obligatios that includes more then a sigle object,

2 Obligation /Legal / Penalty/ shouln,t exsist wen the word choice is precent in any way of the context .

3 (protection) there are diferent tipes of protections protection of a persons Rigths , protection of a persons from life trnt , protection in a way the that person dont die of starbing or hunger protection those definitions word baced or by far the most common life trnts for a person , there is a way of protecting a person in full gear under his or her rights of constitution or just under someone way of determination .

I have reverted this but suspect they were getting at something real, that might be relevant. If anyone else knows what it was, please feel free to add! Elemimele (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obliged versus Obligated

I am not a lawyer, but feel that other non-lawyers might be confused by second sentence of the lead: "People who are under obligations may choose to freely act under obligations". The natural definition of an obligation, is, after all, something where we do not have the choice to act freely. I wonder whether this is because the article does not differentiate between being obliged and being obligated. A bank-teller is obligated to hand over the cash when I present a valid cheque (i.e. it is correct that he should, but he has a free choice not to act under the obligation, though his act would then be immoral). But he is obliged to hand over the cash when I turn up with stocking over my head and a gun (i.e. he has no free choice). Is this the point of the second sentence? Should it be clarified? I'm highlighting the confusion to an average reader, but cannot change the text as I know nothing of law. Elemimele (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]