Final answer:
The question deals with the relationship between moral obligation and impermissible actions, referring to the necessity of obligation in determining the permissibility of actions in given scenarios. The examples provided explore moral reasoning across different contexts, illustrating the commonality of moral judgment even without religious frameworks.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question being asked revolves around the concept of moral obligation and its relationship with actions considered impermissible. Implied in the question is a reference to ethical principles or duties that dictate certain behaviors as obligatory, permissible, or forbidden. For example, actions like 'no killing', 'no physically harming others', 'no lies', 'no theft', and 'no breaking promises' are seen as categorical imperatives—universal laws derived by reason that we have a moral duty to follow, and to transgress these is to be liable to various moral or civil penalties.
Meanwhile, imperfect duties are actions we should aspire to do as often as possible, such as charity or self-improvement, but are not strictly enforceable at all times. However, they are still considered important to the moral fabric of society. The provided scenarios illustrate the use of moral reasoning to determine the obligatoriness, permissibility, or forbiddance of actions in complex moral dilemmas:
- Flipping the switch in the trolley problem is often viewed as permissible because it minimizes harm.
- Rescuing a drowning child is seen as obligatory, following the principle that if one can easily prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing something of comparable importance, one ought to do it.
- However, taking the healthy person's organs in a medical dilemma is seen as forbidden because it violates the individual's right to life and bodily autonomy, which are fundamental moral principles.
The discussion illustrates that obligation is necessary to distinguish between permissible and impermissible actions. So, even without a unified theory of moral compulsion, like a religious framework, people around the world tend to agree broadly on these types of moral judgments. This underlines a shared human capacity for ethical reasoning that surpasses individual belief systems.