ABSTRACT
The concept of obligation, used broadly to denote all the moral relations in which an individual might find himself entangled, has been the workhorse of moral philosophy. And, as Professor Ladd rightly notes, its broad use has been more productive of confusion than clarity, blurring as it does the important differences in kind between the various moral demands people all face. In this way the concept is like the Platonic concept of justice used as a general concept for all that is good, and it is in need of its own sober Aristotle to make some relevant distinctions and to map for its limited and proper use. Professor Ladd seeks to provide such restriction and clarification for the concept of obligation, particularly in so far as this concept has played a role in attempts to outline what moral reasons, if any, there are for obedience to law.
