The nature of obligation in the views of J. St. Mill and J. Austin

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of the nature of obligations in the light of the views of certain thinkers of utilitarianism and positivism, namely: J.St. Mill and J. Austin. The author emphasizes that the utilitarian vision of J.St. Mill, first of all, connects obligation not so much with the desire to maximize good in society, but with minimizing harm from the actions of individuals. The obligation is characterized by compulsion to certain socially useful actions, for failure of which the individual may be held liable. At the same time, he is obliged to refrain from everything that harms others. Therefore, an obligation is what can be demanded from a person. According to the thinker, the sphere of moral obligations includes rules that determine exactly those obligations that society has approved for fulfillment. The criterion of the correctness of our actions is the extent to which they contribute to the achievement of happiness - the highest goal of human aspirations. The motives for fulfilling moral obligations are the so-called external and internal moral sanctions. According to J. St. Mill, justice involves not only the obligation to do right (and not to do wrong), but also the demand of certain persons regarding what they have a moral right to do.
 At the same time, the teaching of J. Austin (the so-called theory of orders) regulates a strict concept of obligations that permeates the entire legal system. The obligation is embodied in an order, implemented through the law, provided with a sanction. The sanction is a necessary element of the law, in its absence the binding effect of legal norms loses its force. The English scientist somewhat radicalizes the doctrine of obligations: the existence of rights is possible only due to the existence of obligations. The fulfillment of a obligation is the fulfillment of the will of a person (God, a sovereign or a private individual) who possesses power (supremacy). It should be noted that only in the context of religious obligations, which derive from divine laws, the scientist talks about the motivation of fulfilling obligations - the greatest happiness for all people. In the remaining cases, the implementation of the orders of superiors by inferiors is assumed to be uncompromising and does not take into account the will of the individual. Society becomes a community of people in which obligation reigns, thanks to which development and provision of good for all is possible.