Often, but not strictly. There's a more general concept being conveyed by the use of the word "duty." It can mean "obligation." It can mean "oughtness". (Did you know that "ought" is a contraction of two words, "owe it"? That's the idea.) The idea is that a genuinely moral precept puts an obligation, an "owing" on one to obey as soon as one understands it.MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 10:52 pmDUTY --- presupposes a deontological point of view of what morality is.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 3:50 pm "Evolving," if true, is itself merely a "fact," not a "value." It's an (supposed) "is," not an "ought." There is no "duty to evolve" or "moral imperative to evolve." It's just a thing that's supposed to be happening anyway, without any moral import at all.
So, for example, the minute you know that "theft is wrong," (assuming we both recognize that precept from the Big 10) you have a duty not to steal. You may still choose to steal, of course; but you can't say afterward that you didn't know you had an obligation not to steal. You've behaved, we say, in an "immoral" way. It's another way of saying that you violated your moral duty.
That's the idea.