You didn't flip the dialogue, you just substituted different words.

Replier: I should fulfill my obligations to society.

Pleader: le suffering

Replier: Ya..I should really do that now. It's my duty.

That's the difference, the perspective. You aren't asking someone to fulfill their obligations, people are taking it upon themselves because the mindset has shifted. It's now upon you to do the right thing, not hand-wave say "you have rights..but it's someone else's job to realize them"

That's not inherent to the word "obligation" any more than saying "I must do this, it is your right". It's fine as a concept, but saying "instead of talking about rights, we should talk about obligations" doesn't clarify anything, because my right is simultaneously your obligation.

Right, but in so doing you're also switching the grammatical subject. The original statement assumes the same subject, moving from rights -> obligations implies a different meaning. I.e., when speaking of myself, "my rights" vs "my obligations" are very different things. Likewise when speaking of society, "our rights" vs "our obligations" also lead to a different dialog. The onus is on what we owe to others, rather than what we are owed, even though such a contract necessarily implies both.

That's exactly my point: Changing the word that's used doesn't matter, what matters is getting people to think of others instead of themselves.

Yeah, that makes sense in egalitarian societies, but in real world societies, it means the slaves aren't allowed a voice.

I think the whole point is that it is from the other perspective (they are "jural corelative"?)[1].

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corelative