Here is a different reason why closure under logical consequence does not sound right. (Then I explain why I reject it.) If I am obligated to provide for my children, then one would say I am obligated to provide for some children. If I go and feed some random children (but not my own), I am not fulfilling my obligation. So, even talking about fulfilling logical consequences of obligations is only important to keep in mind consequentially (i.e. what I need to do as part of fulfilling my obligation). About the roober paradox, I think that there is a universal quantifier problem with the paradox so it is not a paradox. This is best seen by your victim paradox. If I am robbed, then I am obligated to be justly compensated from robbery. However, there is no probem saying that everyone is obligated to be compensated for what what stolen from them. This is as far as I go. If I rob then I am obligated to return what I robbed. For everything that I steal, I ought to return it. It is ideal if that quantifier is vacuous. This is as far as I go. You say: Suppose I steal your lawn mower. If I steal your lawn mower then I am obligated to return it. However, a logical consequence of returning the lawn mower that I stole is that I steal it (because otherwise it was not stolen by me). So, I ought to steal your lawn mower. So: if I steal your lawn mower then I ought to steal your lawn mower. If you think of logical consequences and truths temporally (not as logical truths existing platonically), then this also makes no sense because if I steal your lawn mower then I cannot fulfill my obligation to steal your lawn mower! (Because I already stole it.) Likewise, the closure under logical consequence makes no sense. "If I steal your lawn mower, then I should return it" is inly relevant if I am in a world where I have stollen your lawn mower. Then "I should return it" does not imply its logical necessity (which happened in the past) that "I stole it." I think I deny this principle, at least as stated in the video. The idea that the existence of an obligation which can only exist under some condition does NOT imply the obligation of that condition exist. It is just moral nonsense and I will not go so far as to accept it.
Do you live in Mexico Daniel? I never would had thought. I live in Mexico City. Economist (ITAM), MBA (UCLA), MPA (Harvard). This last, means that in today ‘s Mexico I am jobless. So I am studying a bit of logic just for fun. Great videos. I’ve subscribed and will follow your videos eagerly.
Professor Bonevac, I wanted to ask you: do you have any plans of making video about philosophical ideas of Hans-Georg Gadamer? I think it’s very interesting topic. You’ve made several videos about Heidegger, who is considered to be Gadamer’s mentor.
What are you talking about?? Those are not paradoxes and paradoxes don't really exist in nature. Nature is just what it is. There's contextual information we are purposefully avoiding and then act surprised when we have a "paradox"?? WTF Better to never have stolen obviously...the latter is a correction which is still worse than the initial situation of not stealing. See? No paradox.
