Abstract
In a contribution to this volume, Himma argues for what I call “the liabilities view” for the bindingness of obligations. Put roughly, according to this view, obligations bind in virtue of their detrimental liabilities because of the reasons that we have to avoid them. In this paper, I first raise some doubts against this view. I then sketch an alternative view in response to these doubts. However, I do not go on to argue that this alternative view is superior to the liability view. Instead, I raise a worry about the alternative view in the latter part of the paper. I then go on to suggest that perhaps there is more than one general concept of obligation and we need both views to properly account for them.