Obligation via Capability

Is someone more obligated to do something, the more capable they are?

By “obligation”, I basically mean; insinuation that an action should be taken to cause a more beneficial outcome. In a post from last yr; Blame by Consciousness, I described how someone could be blamed more, for more awareness of alternate actions they could have taken. This is a similar concept, as blame is the insinuation that a certain action should have been taken, in order to cause a more beneficial outcome. The difference, is that “blame” tends to focus more on an action which was taken, and caused a negative result, whereas “obligation” tends to focus on the lack of an action being taken, which could likely cause a positive result.

Being conscious of capable actions, should be applicable for obligation as well. The similar concept of; an individual’s estimate of the result of their actions, should apply for obligation, in the same way I described it for blame. The more aware someone is, of a potential action which they could take to cause a better result, it seems the more they should be obligated.

But, besides awareness of a potential action, capability seems that it should be quite relevant for obligation. If someone has no capability of performing an action, then it seems logical that they should have no obligation. If someone has significant capability, they could hypothetically have significant obligation. A higher degree of capability, would basically equate to a lower degree of effort. Lower effort, would basically mean fewer resources or energy required. So it seems to follow, that the fewer resources or energy needed to be spent by an individual to cause a positive action, the higher the obligation they have.

If causing a certain positive result requires approximately the same resources, regardless of who is spending the resources, then the obligation would move to whom can spend the least energy to supply those resources. If 1 person has excessive pools of the required resource, then it would cost them less energy to supply those resources.

Which particular beneficial outcomes to be sought after, which can be caused by actions that an individual is capable of (with minimal resources or energy), is another question. Calculating beneficiality, can be quite ambiguous and subjective. From the grander perspective, anyone could potentially consider anything to be beneficial, if it suits their subjective view of something being “better”. But, within a particular context, it seems there can be an objective beneficial outcome. Taking common preferences of, what is “beneficial”, is not a concrete context, but should be a more effective guideline to follow, for determining what is a better outcome for any circumstances. A more concrete context would be, any situation with an agreed upon preferred result. In this case, the most beneficial action, would objectively be, that which causes the preferred result.

If agreeing upon a preferable result, is fundamental for determining an objective beneficial action to cause that result, then an individual’s agreeability, seems to be key, for objective obligation. If someone agrees that a particular result is preferable, yet does not take an action to cause that result (despite ease of resources or energy to cause that action), then it seems they have a higher obligation. Lack of that action, with knowledge of capability and preferable outcome, could be considered ignorance.

If the scenario is considered, of less concrete objectivity, then obligation seems to become less certain. If common preferences of an outcome, is disagreed by a person with ease of causing that outcome, then obligation seems less obvious. If 99.9% of people prefer 1 outcome, yet 1 person disagrees, it seems arguable that they are not obligated, as they dont have the knowledge of that same preferable outcome. Even if they are mistaken by their estimate of beneficial outcome, it seems they are not particularly obligated, with their lack of awareness.

Objective obligation seems to increase, with a lower amount of resources or energy needed by a person, to cause an outcome (which they agree is preferable). When a person disagrees with a preferable outcome, less obligation seems applicable. Either way, capability seems to be a direct route to obligation.