Clearly you didn't look at the evidence I presented. The Hebrews applied Aristotle's principles long before the backwards Europeans ever woke up.

John Adams wrote Jefferson in 1813: "Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original revelation of the Creator to his creature, man. When this revelation is clear and certain, by intuition or necessary inductions, no subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede it. Philosophy is not only the love of wisdom, but the science of the universe and its cause. There is, there was, and there will be but one master of philosophy in the universe."

That philosophy is stimulated by the Hebrew Language and the words of Moses. The Hebrew "religion" was never the problem in the "Dark ages" . It was the Catholic Church. and the Church of England and the mixing of Religion and State. Religious institutions not Religion. .

Ever look at the Bill of Rights? More properly the Bill of Constraints on the government as the Constitution does not grant rights. Our rights are innate. What is the first thing? That Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion (Such as today's leftist ideology) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .
.
If it was freedom FROM Religion, which you generalize incorrectly as Supernatural and Superstition and living for another world then why would the Founders, ostensibly educated in Rationalism ever come up with this protection?

You really should read more about the Founder's thinking. But Education today is more about brainwashing than learning. Anything related to Hebrews or Jews was taken out of history.. . Etymology since the Anti-Semitic early to mid 20th Century stops at Latin. As though there were never any languages before them. If you go back to the Dictionaries of the 1700's you will find Hebrew Roots of words absent in today's edited tomes. .

There is only one civilization that has survived for thousands of years. Only one. The Hebrews. Ever wonder why? The Founder's did and they used those same principles.

Did you ever read that the Founders considered Religion to be essential for a virtuous populace and for the American system to survive. Not because of superstition or any of the negatives you dredged up. Because of the 10 principles.

Did you know that Alexander Hamilton attended Nevis Jewish School and that 25% of the free people there were Jewish. Did you know that the Founder's read the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew?

Why is that important? Because the translations that give you your false impressions are inaccurate and can never capture the multiple meaning and truths revealed by the Hebrew Language itself. It is nothing like today's devolved languages. Hebrew and the original language that it and Akkadian and all the languages of that era are based on describes reality in a way that only today's science can.

But why take my word. Do your own research if you can overcome the conditioning of Today's Politically correct propaganda.

Here are some quotes from John Adams

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish
the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of
a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams,
Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston:
Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending
with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution
was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams,
Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston:
Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property
is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and
public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not
covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must
be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or
made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams,
Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston:
Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

What would you call the following?

One has a ___ to take care of oneself (i.e. to not expect others to take care of him/her).

a) a responsibility
b) a duty
c) an expectation

Is there a philosophical difference between a duty and a responsibility?

Not sure what I've done to ruffle your feathers, but I'll apologize in absentia for whatever it was.

So, then you prefer I have an Obligation?

The challenge I face is if no person in society can be held to a level of behavior acceptable to said society, then it is a HORDE.

If there is such an expectation, then there is at least an Obligation to behave in accordance with that society, or get out, or be punished by that society.

Or what of those who seek to destroy the society? We do what is being done now, and protect them?

You have no moral "duties" at all, which invalid concept has long-standing philosophical meaning that is deadly. It does not mean recognizing, understanding, and agreeing with principles such as private property or complying with proper law in a free society.

See Ayn Rand's article "Causality Versus Duty", which has been referred to here several times. It is in the anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It and can be read at https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1970... It is very important to understand.

I know it's not you 'downvoting'. The forum is infected with a couple of militant trolls full of personal resentment.

Emphasizing the nature of "duty" is essential, as explained in "Causality Versus Duty", not pedantic vocabulary.

So, living in a society...

I have NO DUTY to abide by the stated laws?

I have NO DUTY to respect your property (ie, not take it, and not damage it)?

==
I challenge that. I Believe I do!

Its not me downvoting. We agree on principles. We just disagree of the value of pedantic vocabulary elucidations (sorry I swallowed a thesaurus today)

Obligations arise in many ways. That concept is not the same as duty and duty is not restricted to interactions with other people, as in "duty to God".

"Rational choice" was not just brought up as a new topic. I originally referred to the "choice you make to be moral for reasons you understand, not duty", and rationality is essential in Ayn Rand's "Causality Versus Duty".

The quote from Ayn Rand is not the same as what you said. There are no duties. "Negative duty" is a kind of duty. Ayn Rand rejected any rational role for the anti-concept 'duty'.

As I said, the words obligation and duty are used interchangeably. Your quote from Rand (2 posts ago) means the exact same thing as my original post.
But now you are bringing in the phrase "rational choice". Yes, that is a different concept completely. Rational choice is internal mental function. Whereas obligation/duty only relates to interactions with other people, and is on a different conceptual level as well. For example, I have an obligation/duty (high level concept) to respect property rights. I arrive at that by rational choice (lower level concept), because I also want my property rights respected by others.

I didn't say anything about reifying abstractions. Rational people don't do it.

Principles are not discovered as chemical and physical relations in the brain. Conceptual knowledge must be formulated objectively based on perception of reality, whatever the biological form taken by knowledge within the brain, and no one starts with innate knowledge.

Rational understanding is accomplished through proper use of concepts, including abstractions in a hierarchy, not "memes" and not restricted to observation by itself: Abstract principles are not perceived.

Crossing the border of a free country is not anything like that of dictatorship, either in principle or in implementation. The US border is not a "prison wall". Those leaving are free to go unless suspected of criminality. Those entering are checked within the bounds of limited criteria. A dictatorship does not recognize limitations at all, either in principle or how it acts.

Any kind of government action may involve force. In a free country its use does not replace rights with permissions and it doesn't make the US "no different" than communist East Germany. In a free country one is free to do anything unless specifically prohibited and the government is restricted in what it can do and what it must do, with no freedom to decide otherwise. That includes entering and leaving the country. Dictatorship is the opposite in both intent and actions.

So you are saying that as rational beings, humans can conceptualize from objective reality what is free actions qua man and to be free to reify the concepts as existing in reality. Moral concepts exist only in minds created by brains and are various chemical and physical relations in the brain. They have to be discovered by observing relationships between oneself and others. They are not something which one is born with, being tabula rasa at birth. Once formed the concepts must be taught to others almost like memes. Morals are concepts by which one chooses to deal with reality, they are not something born in and must be rationally created by observation and rational thought. If one tries to reify them, one ends up with a number of metaphors about reality and thus loose part of one's understanding.

I never said there should not be geographical of or legal boarders. Just that needing permission to freely cross a boarder in both directions is no different whether by constitutional based laws of states or by a dictator. Both are equivalent to a prison wall where one must have permission to both enter and to leave. Property boarders are different because the owner can leave without permission and need not ask to return across the properties boarder. Of course, one's liberty may be stopped by the state or others.

The Enlightenment was made possible by the resurgence and application of Aristotelianism as the west climbed out of the Dark and Middle Ages of religion, not the Hebrews and thousands of year of their "case law". The religious principles of supernaturalism, superstition, and living for another world certainly were rejected.

When you have a gun to your head you do still have the ability to act against it and be shot. But that isn't necessarily courageous, it may be unethically foolhardy, and it isn't what is meant by denying that a moral right "ceases to exist". The principle of the right always exists, but you can be physically compelled to not act in accordance with it -- which we see all the time as our rights, which don't cease to exist as principles proper to man, are denied by brute force as we futilely protest, "but I have a right ..."

It also isn't about a generality of natural abilities of a particular kind of animals. Rights are moral principles that pertain specifically to human beings as the "rational animal", with the emphasis on rational, not animal.

There are no moral "duties". "Passive recognition" of a duty makes no sense. Active minds do not either "actively" or "passively recognize" duties.

Understanding the difference between duty and rational choice based on agreement "for reasons you understand" is not "hyper-restrictive use of language". It is fundamental. The full explanation in "Causality Versus Duty" has been referenced here several times. No one is using "hyper-restrictive use of language" to "persuade anyone who disagrees".

This is an Ayn Rand forum and answers to basic questions should be given with proper concepts and essential distinctions, not package deals and anti-concepts invoking the notion of "duty", which is fundamentally antithetical to Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Rational, intellectually and morally independent individuals do not "take on duties". "Duty" is an immoral notion that is a fundamentally insidious, invalid concept at its root. It does not mean rationally assuming a responsibility by choice. Acceptance of "duty" in a "voluntary" duty mentality is no better than "voluntary" altruism, "voluntary" mysticism, or any other kind of "voluntary" irrationalism. See http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/dut... and Ayn Rand's entire article "Causality Versus Duty" in Philosophy: Who Needs It.

Rights do not imply duty. "Collectively they can" and "duty can be imposed by the duly elected government" are collectivism. There is no implied imposed "contract". "Duty" is an invalid concept https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... and has no place in a moral society.

Again we see bulk 'downvoting' of everything I post by an anti-Ayn Rand coward who does not belong here.

It does not address the initial question at all and is incorrect. Rights do not impose duties. Blarman is an advocate of the duty mentality from his religious thinking. Ayn Rand completely rejected it.

Entering a free country by right does not mean there should not be border checks for those who have no right to be here. Political freedom and liberty mean the same thing. It is the opposite of communists prohibiting people from leaving their prison without their permission because no rights were recognized at all.

A right to act is the freedom to act within one's natural abilities as a particular type of animal. That freedom of action does not stop because of governments, property rights, etc. What stops is the liberty of performing the action, not ability to try to act in some context. I did phrase my last sentence wrongly. Even without liberty to act, one still has the moral ability to make the choice to act and accept the consequences from laws or persons impeding the action. It takes moral courage to do so and the chance of losing one's life.

Well stated. In the recognition of individual rights and the codified/express recognition of others rights, we may take on certain duties such as those you mentioned. But such is an individual, voluntary choice - not one pressed upon us by others.