Obeying the law

1

Positive Duties (What you should do)

Positive and Negative Duties

Negative Duties (What you should not do)

The Moral Law

Perfect and Imperfect Duties: A Brief Introduction It’s difficult to escape the many obligations we face in everyday life. Some of these are enduring obligations, the do’s and don’ts of life, so to speak, which are often stated as general principles. You shouldn’t drive recklessly. Don’t use blasphemous words. In exchange for a fair wage, you ought to give an honest day’s work. You should show respect toward your elders. Each of these principles are examples of a special class of obligations called duties. Some duties are things we are told we shouldn’t do, like ‘don’t endanger others’ or ‘don’t speak blasphemy,’ whereas other duties are ways in which we are obliged to act, such as ‘give to others what is due to them’ or ‘be respectful.’ Such expressions emerge from the realm of ‘oughts’ and ‘ought nots’ or, in more contemporary language, the ‘shoulds’ and ‘should nots’ of human action. These principles are largely based upon judgements about right versus wrong, and in some instances, they may even involve questions of good versus evil. In ethics, principles such as these are called moral duties. When we consider what some of these duties might be specifically, we quickly realize that some carry a stronger sense of obligation than others. You may, for example, feel an obligation to get to work on time, but your obligation to help a person in distress may cause you to stop and help and yet be late to work. Suppose you saw an elderly neighbor who had fallen in her driveway. Wouldn’t you feel compelled to attend immediately to her needs, even though you expect this would leave your boss and coworkers waiting for you to begin an important meeting? In many cases, we are forced to set aside one duty in favor of another which, in the moment, seems more pressing. The question we’ll examine here is whether or not there is something about the obligation itself, realized by virtue of the type of duty to which it belongs, which signals a built-in hierarchy and which, in more difficult moral questions, can give us a proper sense of precedence or priority. This hierarchy is what ethicists have in mind when they talk about duties being “positive” versus “negative” and “perfect” versus “imperfect.”

Negative duties are obligations that forbid or limit one's actions. They are called “negative”

because they proscribe certain things that we should not or must not do. In the Decalogue, eight of the commandments begin with the words “You shall not...” and are therefore expressed as negative duties. The remaining two commandments obligate us to do something rather than to refrain from some behavior. These commandments are examples of positive duties, or duties which tell us what we should or must do. The two positive commandments that appear in the Decalogue are “Keep holy the Sabbath” and “Honor your father and your mother.”

Yet it is clear that not all moral obligations are explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments. Examples of other negative duties most regard as moral obligations include “don't hurt people” or “don't be selfish.” Examples of positive duties include “keep your promises” and “help those in

2

distress.” Any time we use words to convey some part of the Moral Law, the way we express that moral obligation will always fall under one of two types: positive or negative.

Moral duties are also often classified as either “perfect” or “imperfect.” Perfect duties are obligations that are always in place no matter what the situation might be. Imperfect duties are duties that do not produce the same obligation for everyone in every circumstance. The reason perfect duties are called “perfect” is that they cannot be eclipsed by other duties or superseded by more pressing concerns. They are, therefore, duties which admit no exceptions. In other words, the term “perfect” is making the claim that some duties apply to all human beings at all times and in all instances, regardless of the circumstances.

If perfect duties truly exist and if some of these obligations dictate what you shouldn’t do (ie.

they are also negative duties), then there are certain acts that are, in and of themselves, always wrong. These perfect, negative duties are called moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are exceptionless moral rules that always prohibit human beings from committing certain acts. Aristotle, himself a non-Jewish, pre-Christian pagan who lived in the 4th century B.C., gives three examples of moral absolutes: murder, theft, and adultery (Nicomachean Ethics II.6 1107a14). The sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments of the Decalogue name these same prohibitions, and since the words used are “You shall not…,” they also appear to present these negative moral obligations as perfect duties and thus absolutes.

The fact that moral absolutes are also “perfect” moral obligations suggests that this special category of duties has the distinctive feature of being immune from conflicts with any other duties. A conflict in duties occurs when two duties oppose one another, creating a situation in which one obligation must be fulfilled at the expense of another. However, when a perfect duty and an imperfect duty come in conflict, the perfect duty must always take precedence. The reason is that perfect duties are, by definition, exceptionless, whereas imperfect duties are not and therefore can be subject to the particular circumstances a person faces.

Conflicts in duties are sometimes called moral dilemmas. Some think moral dilemmas present two moral choices which are both, in some sense, “wrong.” Fulfilling the duty to stop and help an elderly woman, for example, might come at the expense of getting to work on time, which is an obligation owed to one’s coworkers and employer. Following this line of thinking, it is wrong to get to work late, but it is also wrong not to stop and help. Since this situation presents a conflict in duties, doing wrong, some would say, is unavoidable.

3

Other Positive Duties

(What you should do)

The Decalogue and Perfect Duties

Negative Duties (What you should not do)

Love God

Love thy neighbor

IV. Keep holy the Sabbath.

V. Honor your father and mother.

I. You shall have no other gods before me. II. You shall not make for yourself an idol. III. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD.

VI. You shall not murder. VII. You shall not commit adultery. VIII. You shall not steal. IX. You shall not bear false witness. X. You shall not covet.

Positive duties

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (Jn 14:15)

Others, however, argue that some duties are imperfect and can therefore be superseded by a higher form of obligation. According to this view, imperfect duties are obligations we should undoubtedly fulfill, but only as best as we can and to the extent that we are able. If a conflict in imperfect duties occurs, one duty can therefore rightly be fulfilled at the expense of another when one duty carries greater weight, and this weighing is often dependent upon certain physical limitations, such as not being able to be in two places at the same time. My children, for example, may need my care and attention, but my friend might need my help with a paper he's writing. I am not able to be in both places at the same time, so I must choose to fulfill one obligation but not the other. I may decide that my obligation to my children, because of the degree to which they rely upon me, carries greater weight than my obligation to help my friend. In this way, I may find that one imperfect duty outweighs the other.

This weighing of duties, however, is not to be used when a “perfect” duty is at stake. If a perfect

duty seems to conflict with an imperfect duty, the perfect duty always carries the higher form of obligation. The soldier who has been ordered to execute a group of innocent women and children could therefore properly the refuse the order because he knows ‘never murder’ is a perfect duty despite the duty to obey his superiors, which he realizes is imperfect. If this moral diagnosis is correct, then classifying duties as perfect and imperfect helps define the hierarchy of duties and provides a built-in guide to assist in moral decision-making. Furthermore, this hierarchy resolves what might appear to be a moral dilemma between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty, allowing a person to reason through a difficult moral decision without being forced to “do wrong.”

We can now summarize the main points made about moral duties and obligations. Classifying duties as either “negative” or “positive” involves simply placing various duties into the categories of what should be done and what should not be done. Calling some duties perfect and others imperfect, on the other hand, does something much more profound: it involves making the claim that some duties are exceptionless and therefore always take precedence. Knowing which moral obligations are without exception – those which must always be upheld – is central to sound moral reasoning because it helps us keep our moral priorities straight.