Furthermore, the traditional idea of merit (or "superabundance") associated with supererogation is reflected in secular ethical theory in the duty of gratitude: acknowledging the meritorious nature of a gift or any non-obligatory well doing is the morally obligatory response (irrespective of the moral praise which might or might not accrue to the agent of the supererogatory act).
In this connection it is worth noting that those who believe that religion is the basis of morality face the following dilemma: If the commands issued by God are morally obligatory, then that is because either: (1) they express independently justified moral values, or (2) God's commands are necessarily morally good.
Granting to some extent the force of the objection, we can say, on this view, that God's moral goodness cannot consist in God's adhering to what is morally obligatory.
Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
If this was what he was after, he would have to stop thinking of his work as something morally obligatory and freighted with significance.
One of the things Young Spock has to learn in the movie is the difference between what is morally praiseworthy and what is morally obligatory.
According to John Stuart Mill (1806 73), an act is morally obligatory only if it creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, relative to its alternatives.
(On most cruise lines tipping is either mandatory or morally obligatory, and can add hundreds of pounds to the cost; two notable British exceptions are Thomson and Voyages of Discovery).
The term 'morally obligatory' cannot play its role in our practical lives without our knowing that the morally obligatory is the commanded by God.
Why might one think that the masterful use of 'morally obligatory' requires recognition that the morally obligatory is what is commanded by God?
Lacking further evidence the more probably good action is morally obligatory.
