Addenda to Where the Obligational Stance might lead

Previously

I wrote about The Obligational Stance, which I earlier called The Ethical Stance, and I suggested that it might give us tools to reason about ethics without deriving an "ought" from an "is".

Argument From Conflict

Now ISTM that the Argument From Ramifications Of Who/Whom is more particular than it needs to be, and A need not be a set. The first three lines could be replaced by something like:

Given ethos E where:

• there exists obligational entity A
• E requires negative obligations (or fails to require positive obligations) wrt A.

and the rest of the argument scheme is basically unchanged, except that A is an individual, not a set. That scheme would be the Argument From Conflict. The Argument From Ramifications Of Who/Whom would be a subtype of it.

Clarification

From the last post, one might get the impression that the Obligational Stance is about the ethoi that all the moral shouting is about. But I intend it to apply more broadly. It's about entities that see obligations, be the obligations petty or grand.