 So we asked ourselves last time whether there are rules, duties, obligations that we have in relationships. So to be clear, there's not a whole lot of disagreement that there seem to be things that you should or should not do in a relationship. But one wonders whether there's genuine obligations in relationship. Well, let's suppose there are. What would that be like? What would that mean? And so to this case, we have a couple walking down the street and the guy is a little distracted by something that he sees. His girlfriend's upset and says, what do you think you're doing? And he says, hey, relax. It's not like you have anything to worry about. What do you mean I've got nothing to worry about? Well, since we're in a committed relationship, I'm morally obligated not to cheat on you. So I'm not going to cheat on you. I don't think this is gonna have the reaction he anticipates. And to be clear, such a reaction is certainly justified. But the point being, or the reason why this reaction is justified, is that when one performs an action out of obligation that should be performed out of care, something went wrong. Well, suppose we have something like the following scenario. We have a child and a dad. The child comes in and says, dad, I didn't get a birthday present. That's because I didn't get you one, son. Why didn't you get me a birthday present? Because I'm not obligated to. And for what it's worth, at least under some versions of these moral theories, it may not be, right? So under Locke's theory, there's no obligation to purchase a birthday present for anybody. Under John Stuart Mills, utilitarianism may be be obligated to purchase presents for other people because it would increase the greatest overall happiness but not your own child. And these under some versions of moral obligation, sure, this dad may not have an obligation to purchase a birthday present for a child. Well, it still seems like there's something wrong here. But that just shows that there's some sort of difference between obligation and relationship. Admittedly, that case seems a little harsh since the child is going without something that the child wants. But suppose we change it up a little bit. Suppose the child gets his favorite dinner and the dad walks out the room. Dad, you didn't let me tell you thank you for my dinner. You shouldn't tell me thank you, son. Why not? Because I'm obligated to feed you. So the child is getting something that the child wants in this case. But what seems to kind of go wrong here is that the dad did it out of obligation as opposed to some kind of care or concern for the child. So this point's kind of a problem when we're talking about obligations and relationship. If you're doing something because you're obligated to, maybe you went wrong somewhere. Let's just grant for the sake of argument that you do have obligations for certain behaviors in relationships. I mean, there seem to be some obvious cases. Feeding, children, for example. Yeah, that seems obvious but you're obligated to feed your kids. But the point is when we're dealing with relationships, if you're performing these actions out of an obligation and not out of some sense of care, some desire for the well-being of the other, well then something went wrong there. Well, like I said, let's grant for the sake of argument that there are obligations to fulfill in a relationship. One thing we haven't really talked about so far and one thing that's very important to consider is what happens when you fail to fulfill an obligation. Understand the conceptions of justice or obligations and morality, say something specifically like Locke, well then if you fail to fulfill an obligation, you're liable to judgment. Let's consider our rather dim-witted friend here who decided to get distracted while walking down the street. I am not going to say his actions that are all justified. I am not even gonna say that her reaction to him is unjustified. Sure, let's grant that her reaction to him is justified. And let's grant that he did something completely wrong. I mean, now these are really all that controversial. However, does this mean that he is now liable to punishment, to condemnation? Let's just grant for the sake of argument that if one person does something wrong in a personal relationship, the other one is justified in punishing and condemning the other. Well, this sets a moral inequality between the two. Their moral standings are no longer the same. One is somehow superior to another. That effectively kills the relationship. Even if that isn't true, if there is no inequality in moral standing, nobody likes being punished. Chances are that if you administer punishment in a relationship, that's the end of the relationship. I mean, let's be clear. Nobody is obligated to be in a personal relationship with anybody else. So if one person does not like being punished by the other, they are under no obligation to stay in the relationship. Even if the one person is justified in acting and punishing, it's still gonna be the end of the relationship. In short, whether because acting out of obligation ends the relationship, there's something wrong there, or punishment and failing to perform an obligation, the obligation kills the relationship. So we've seen how obligation can impact or change relationship, but one wonders whether relationship can change one's obligations. To see what I mean, well, let's consider a good old trolley case. Remember, if you do nothing, then the trolley goes forward. But if you pull the lever, then the trolley goes off to the left. And for John Stuart Mill, of course, you pull the lever and kill the one for the sake of the five. And if you remember that discussion, it wasn't as if this was a completely problem-free solution. But something that everybody did kind of agree on, even though it was never really discussed, is if you decided to pull the lever and kill the five for the sake of the one, well, something really went wrong there. Well, suppose we change up the case a little bit, and instead of a complete stranger that's laying on the left side of the track, it's one's own infant child. It's not completely implausible to say that one would not need to pull the lever after all, it's not you, that's killing the five people, it is the train, and it is your child that's on the left side of the track. If confronted with the same situation, I think it's at least understandable, if not defensible, that you would not pull the lever to kill your own child to save five people, especially five people you don't know. Well, now change the case a little bit. Instead of five strangers on the right-hand side, it's your child. And if you don't do anything, that train is gonna run over your child. Again, it's understandable. I think a lot of people would agree or probably even perform the action. Yeah, you would go ahead and pull the lever, kill the five people for the sake of your child. It's at least understandable. Now here's the question, was it wrong? Do your obligations change depending upon the people who are affected by your actions and whether you have a personal relationship to them?