THE CONCEPT OF OBLIGATION
COERCIVE MANIPULATION AND A NON-TRUTH
draft, not edited nicely, but I think you'll get the point...
YOU OWE ME/US
You "should" do this for me. You owe me. You are obligated. If you were a good person, you would do so and so because you are obligated.
A responsible person chooses to do something because of the net benefit of it. A responsible person does that from an internal locus of control - meaning he does it because he thinks, "inside of him", it is best.
A person operating at a lower level of responsibility will often do something because he is obligated and others expect him to do it. Indeed, this is a kissing cousin of guilt and shame, also "made ups" that are not legitimate.
NOT REALITY
He doesn't realize that this concept of obligation is not real, that it is something made up and only existing in the mind, not out in reality.
Yes, there is a system where we hope that the other person will "do the right thing" in cooperation with us if we do the right thing - a kind of social system that makes things work better. Perhaps a system trying to go for fair exchange. And we will often punish people if they don't live up to what we think they should do (as we know "what is right") - we will try to exert "social control" (aka pressure or make wrong, etc.) [But the people who suffer most from this are those who have "learned" to impose this make wrong on themselves.]
No, I'm not advocating that we do not choose to do what is right and cooperative. I am just saying that we don't "owe anything to anyone" - it is just a mental construct, a figment of our imagination.
In codependency, at least on the side of the rescuer, we feel "obligated" to protect and care for the other person. But, we have no such obligation.
RESPONSIBLE FOR OURSELVES, ONLY
However, each person is responsible for himself. My only job is to do that which serves my interests and if it serves my interests to cooperate and help others then I will choose that, but I have no obligation to do so. [Relevant: Evolution and also Selfishness.)
The famous philosopher Ayn Rand was quite a compassionate person, but "seemed to be" the opposite because of her insistence that each man must pull his own weight and that we had no obligation to help him, though we could choose to if we wanted. She believed that concept contributed to the most good for the world and for freedom.
She helped a Japanese family interred in the U.S. during World War II and was quite involved in trying to rescue people mistreated in Russia. She was a Russian immigrant coming over here with dirt poor parents and was always sympathetic to the poor, though she thought it was necessary that each man, regardless of his station needed to do his part if he was able.
Having seen the repression and coercion in Russia, she was strongly against coercion in society and government - and she'd seen the devastating results (yes, those people thought they were doing the right thing - it just wasn't workable!). She advocated that the government's role was to be limited to protection of property rights and citizens and to assure that we were protected from harm and dishonesty. But when the government exceeded the boundaries of that limitation and exerted coercive force, and when society also did so, she objected to the harm that she saw would happen. If you read her two key bestsellers, you'll see that this theme dominates them. In the first book (The Fountainhead), the hero chooses integrity over money and coercion (though she is accused of being for the rich and not for the poor, that is not at all true and is just an interpretation). In the super-classic Atlas Shrugged, the whole thing was about freedom and the workability of freedom in a working system (capitalism and fair exchange) and how that would produce the best results for the people of the country.
She upset people (and perhaps didn't communicate clearly) when she railed against "forced altruism", seeming to rail against altruism itself - but the latter was not the case - she just believed that altruism is up to each individual and that coercing people to be that way was harmful.
AGREEMENT DOES NOT MAKE TRUTH
Some people insist that obligation is an actually existing "thing" that is real, though it actually is only a social agreement strictly existing in our minds and not in the real world. Agreement about something does not make it true or real, period.
In the way of thinking, people will induce guilt in themselves or other if they do not live up to their obligations of what they "should" do.
IT IS STRICTLY MY CHOICE
What I do is strictly my choice and I get whatever the consequences are of that choice. However, I do not accept that others can make that choice for me - I am not controlled by others, nor will I ever let myself be. [I do choose to do no harm to anyone, but that is strictly my choice that I think "works".] I choose what I think is right and ethical. I am responsible for myself and my life and if I choose anything beyond that it is a choice not an obligation!!!!!
BUT, DON'T CHILDREN OWE THEIR PARENTS?
No, they don't. The parents made a choice and they, of course, did some great things, but their is no legitimate contract, only an often assumed one. We get to choose in each moment what to do for our parents and our parents cannot legitimately play the "you owe me" card.
Nor is it legitimate to play the "I did this for you therefore you owe me" game. To "give" in order to get is not really giving.
BUT THAT SOUNDS IMMORAL...
Morality often is part of a morass of "shoulds" and "make wrongs", including coercion in order to make society work. But it is ethics that deals with reality and which has validity (though morality will often contain pieces that are ethical). See Ethics And Morality.
THE REALITY
The reality: You owe no one and no one owes you.
(People get to "choose" what they will do, but it is not legitimately mandated.)
