Duty

[Pilgrim]

“Duty then is the sublimest word in the English language. Do your duty in all things…You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less.”

 

Robert E. Lee was alleged to have put those words into a letter to his son. Although historical research has shown that the letter was probably bogus, it is clear from Lee's life that it was a credo.

 

So, what about duty? Where does duty stop and self-preservation begin?

 

Yes, this thread arises from the one on divorce, but I hope no one will take it that it is aimed at any individual there; it's not.

 

And while this thread finds its origin there, I don't intend that it be limited to the duty of marriage, although marriage is one of the heaviest duties we accept, and one of the commonest.

 

Are duties imposed (such as upon a military draftee) of a different nature than duties accepted voluntarily, or even sought out?

 

In a voluntary acceptance of duty, who gets to define the nature and extent of the duty owed? In the case of, say, a military enlistment or commission, the duty is pretty clearly defined or understood. In the case of a marriage, it is less so. Do you ever have a "duty" to an employer?

 

Is there a sliding scale of responsibility to duty's call?

 

What constitutes justifiable grounds for abandonment of duty?

 

And finally, is execution of duty, as Lee believed, the end-all, the purpose of a meaningful life?

 

Pilgrim

 

[Bob Palin]

I would want to separate the concept of duty from that of responsibility before getting into this subject but don't have a concise idea.

 

I think of duty as something that is imposed and therefore is a tool of The Man to control the people.

Responsibility is something you personally take on and must be pursued to the end of reasonableness, wherever that is.

Honesty is the ruling principle.

[Lawman]

[i

 

And finally, is execution of duty, as Lee believed, the end-all, the purpose of a meaningful life?

 

Pilgrim

 

I've given consideration to your questions long ago and I've resolved that the only answers for me are to be found here

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ECC%2012:13-14&version=NIV;

 

Not that I'm any more clear on the answer to the question but just that it's my most trusted source for the answer.

[Dennis Andress]

I think Bob has the right idea. For me, duty is what remains after all responsibilities are fulfilled.

[beemerman2k]

Wow, your questions kicked off a flood of questions in my own mind:

 

- usually, a duty is clearly defined. WHO clearly defines the duties in a marriage, or any relationship for that matter, but the participants in the relationship?

 

- many people sign up to accept certain duties, even if they are not fit to serve!

 

- isn't our ultimate duty to our selves? No? It's to our spouses? Is that healthy and realistic? Do I want someone to place her duty to me above her duty to herself? Don't I want her to see me as someone who is "in her best interest to serve and to please" as opposed to being duty bound to me? I don't think I am interested in having anyone duty bound to me. I am not a child; I can take care of myself. I don't need another to protect me from the realities of life. Neither does she, I would hope.

 

- if my ultimate duty is to myself, and I see my country, my leaders, and my family in my best interest, doesn't that provoke the highest and most committed form of duty from me -- a duty that springs from my heart?

[steve404]

 

 

Duty derived of moral concepts is different than duty of obligation from custom and/or authority.

 

Duty free shops are free of government imposed obligatory custom fees.

 

To the point, most of us live in a gray zone of duty, mainly trying to do what is right. What is right changes in some minds and not in others.

[Bob Palin]

Duty derived of moral concepts is different than duty of obligation from custom and/or authority.

Duty imposed by those holding moral concepts, or from custom, or from authority, is oppression.

[Dave McReynolds]

“Duty then is the sublimest word in the English language. Do your duty in all things…You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less.”

 

Robert E. Lee was no doubt a fine officer and gentleman, but he was also instrumental in losing a war that plunged the South into decades of poverty and oppression. Would the South have been better off if Lee had asked more questions before he rode off toward the sound of cannons? Probably not, as someone else would have just replaced him, but maybe so, as whoever replaced him would probably not have been so brilliant a general, and so would have lost the war faster, thus sparing the South some quantum of pain and suffering.

 

I think duty is an important concept, and sometimes people and nations are called on to make sacrifices for the good of their families and people that are not in their own personal interests. Without a sense of duty, they would be unlikely to make them.

 

Was Lt. Calley doing his duty when he ravaged My Lai? He has recently expressed "remorse," but when pressed, he refuses to outright apologize for his actions because he believes he was still doing his duty in obeying orders from superior officers (where have we heard that before?). Was Picket doing his duty when he sacrificed thousands of his men in a hopeless charge at Gettysburg? Was Simpson doing his duty when he charged his light brigade against the Russian guns? Undoubtedly. Did the families of the dead wish they had used more common sense and not sacrificed their loved ones in a stupid action based on their concept of duty? Probably.

 

So I believe duty is one of the bricks in the foundation of our society, but must be balanced with intelligent questions, wisdom, and even some consideration for our own personal interests. There are no doubt other factors that should be balanced against the call of duty as well.

[Pilgrim]

I would want to separate the concept of duty from that of responsibility before getting into this subject but don't have a concise idea.

 

I think of duty as something that is imposed and therefore is a tool of The Man to control the people.

Responsibility is something you personally take on and must be pursued to the end of reasonableness, wherever that is.

Honesty is the ruling principle.

 

Why, you old unregenerate hippy, you.

 

I have to disagree. Law is what is used by The Man (who is all of us) to control the people.

 

Duty imposed by those holding moral concepts, or from custom, or from authority, is oppression.

 

Let's look at that premise for moment.

 

First of all, if that statement is what you meant to say then "duty" can only be imposed by oneself. Is that what you meant?

 

Duty goes beyond individuals, I think. It is the duty of a state (in the broad sense of "state") to protect its members and manage relations with other states. So, to what degree is it legitimate for a state to demand service of its members in execution of the larger duty to the whole? For instance, taxes. Do we have a duty to pay taxes, or is it no more than an obligation? Or a draft in time of national emergency.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

- usually, a duty is clearly defined. WHO clearly defines the duties in a marriage, or any relationship for that matter, but the participants in the relationship?

Yes. They set the duties out with the vows they took when they got married. Those vows do not include a pledge to eternal happiness in every aspect of life or indulgence of every desire.

 

 

- isn't our ultimate duty to our selves? No?

No. That is called selfishness, or at least self-centeredness.

 

Pilgrim

[smiller]

So I believe duty is one of the bricks in the foundation of our society, but must be balanced with intelligent questions, wisdom, and even some consideration for our own personal interests.

Very well said Dave. And there are several other emotional 'trigger words' to which the same considerations should always be applied.

[Pilgrim]

“Duty then is the sublimest word in the English language. Do your duty in all things…You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less.”

 

Robert E. Lee was no doubt a fine officer and gentleman, but he was also instrumental in losing a war that plunged the South into decades of poverty and oppression. Would the South have been better off if Lee had asked more questions before he rode off toward the sound of cannons? Probably not, as someone else would have just replaced him, but maybe so, as whoever replaced him would probably not have been so brilliant a general, and so would have lost the war faster, thus sparing the South some quantum of pain and suffering.

 

I think duty is an important concept, and sometimes people and nations are called on to make sacrifices for the good of their families and people that are not in their own personal interests. Without a sense of duty, they would be unlikely to make them.

 

Was Lt. Calley doing his duty when he ravaged My Lai? He has recently expressed "remorse," but when pressed, he refuses to outright apologize for his actions because he believes he was still doing his duty in obeying orders from superior officers (where have we heard that before?). Was Picket doing his duty when he sacrificed thousands of his men in a hopeless charge at Gettysburg? Was Simpson doing his duty when he charged his light brigade against the Russian guns? Undoubtedly. Did the families of the dead wish they had used more common sense and not sacrificed their loved ones in a stupid action based on their concept of duty? Probably.

 

So I believe duty is one of the bricks in the foundation of our society, but must be balanced with intelligent questions, wisdom, and even some consideration for our own personal interests. There are no doubt other factors that should be balanced against the call of duty as well.

 

Dave, your points are well made and well taken.

 

However, in R.E. Lee's defense, let me point out that the situation with regard to the duty of the various states to the national government was far less clear than it is now. In fact, it took that war to settle the issue. In those days, one's primary felt allegiance was to one's state.

 

History tells us that Lee agonized long before he went where he felt his primary duty lay - to the defense of his state, Virginia. I believe he probably asked all the right questions of himself and came to a painful conclusion about it. In truth, I can't fault him for it.

 

Pilgrim

[Quinn]

For me, the idea of "Duty" implies a contract, sometimes stated and sometimes implied. If one party breaks the contract, then the other is without obligation to continue it. Take the draft as an example. I have a duty to help my country because I've willingly accepted the benefits of living here. The country, however, has an obligation and implied contract to use me reasonably and only when necessary. If they want to use me as gun fodder or want me to kill harmless people, then my obligation is over and I can go to jail or Canada instead. Same with working for a company; I represent them and they represent me; we have a duty to each other. If I badmouth the company to customers or the company doesn't behave in an ethical manner, then the contract is broken and the duty is over. Marriage the same.

 

All about accepting the contract and obligation.

 

 

[vizhip]

I kept thinking of duty as obligation... and after reading the wikipedia, I realized that I was correct...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty

 

I short excerpt of the article:

 

This is not to suggest that living a life of duty precludes one from the best sort of life, but duty does involve some sacrifice of immediate self-interest.

 

Cicero is an early philosopher who acknowledged this possibility. He discusses duty in his work “On Duty." He suggests that duties can come from four different sources:

 

1. It is a result of being human

2. It is a result of one's particular place in life (your family, your country, your job)

3. It is a result of one's character

4. One's own moral expectations for oneself can generate duties

 

From the root idea of obligation to serve or give something in return, involved in the conception of duty, have sprung various derivative uses of the word; thus it is used of the services performed by a minister of a church, by a soldier, or by any employee or servant.

 

In my opinion... we each enter into a duty with full understanding that we have taken upon an obligation... We may not know the full extent of said duty, but we have committed ourselves to serve...

 

Upon completing the obligation or duty, you will find your self-worth has increased greatly for having performed successfully in the task... where-as those that do not complete the duty have to re-evaluate their position and then carry forward to complete the duty to the best of their ability or find an alternate acceptable resolution... problem being... the resolution will need to be acceptable to those whom the duty was owed...

 

But you have touched upon another cross roads when you mention the duty of Lt. Calley...

 

Yes, Lt. Calley did have a duty to his superior officers to carry out lawful orders in the course of his service... but didn't he have an even greater duty to a higher power to reject the order as immoral ??? I would say unlawful, but since we were at war at the time, that term balances on a very thin wire...

 

And another point that has been brought out in the threads in the forum is this...

 

Duty has changed over the decades... definitions of many words have changed and some cease to have any meaning... has Duty become one of those words ??? Now days the younger generation looks at Duty as a promise to be fulfilled if it isn't out of their way... or doesn't require any special effort...

 

Times are changing and I worry that the young people today do not understand commitment, duty or responsibility... and if none of them learn it... when we old timers pass, who will be around to help them learn the lessons when they need it most ??? Because sooner or later, commitment has to be made... and our duty must be defined on a personal and national basis... then we can take up the responsibility to see the job through...

 

and yes... rambling... very tired tonight... will hopefully make more sense this weekend...

 

Nice start of a topic Pilgrim...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[EffBee]

This is one of those IMO things.

 

Duty is a contract with oneself. Its execution is the measure of character.

[John Ranalletta]

Duty derived of moral concepts is different than duty of obligation from custom and/or authority.

Duty imposed by those holding moral concepts, or from custom, or from authority, is oppression.

...and therein lays the rub. Discussing "duty" or it's Siamese twin "loyalty" on conceptual levels is fun but not very informative. For instance, the implied "duties" of being a productive US citizen are changing in huge ways with far-ranging implications.

• Is PETA right in that we have a duty not to kill and eat anything with a face?
• Do any of us have a duty to be "citizens of the world"
• Does one even have a duty to be productive to be a citizen?
• Do people have a duty to pay their mortgages regardless the value of their houses?
  
• Do people have a duty to fend for themselves and to what degree?
  
• Does loyalty and being willing to fight in the continuing wars we start constitute loyalty?
  
• Is it one's duty to minimize or maximize the taxes one pays?
  
• Do existing generations have any duty to further generations in terms of ecology, wealth preservation, etc.?
• When considering whether to support the proposed heath care bill, how does a Congress person parse honor his duty to citizens he represents, his political ideology, the voters who voted for him, himself, his party, his donors. Does he not "owe" a duty to each?
• Are self-imposed duties of greater weight than those imposed or implied by others?
• Does citizenship of any country "impose" or "imply" certain duties?

[Whip]

This is one of those IMO things.

 

Duty is a contract with oneself. Its execution is the measure of character.

 

Exactly.

 

I believe.

 

 

Everyone must live by their own "Code of honor" or "Duty". Your life experiences and your upbringing form that code. Those experiences are influenced by things you read and things you feel. The true measure of your duty is what is formed in your heart and soul by those events.

 

 

I don't think you are born with a duty to do anything more than survive as long as possible.

 

 

Life is what you make of it.Your duty is what you make of it.

 

Sometimes I wish I didn't have a "Code of Honor". Living up to my own Code is hard. There are no excuses for failure and no one blame.

 

I now have a self imposed duty to get to work, cause I got a bunch of folks that count on me every day. And some that don't count on me, but I gotta keep myself in position to be able to help them if they need it. That's my personal duty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EffBee]

Living up to my own Code is hard. There are no excuses for failure and no one blame.

 

That right there, is one of the essences that make a man, and a people, great.

[Pilgrim]

Well, can duty be imposed, or does something not become a duty until it is accepted?

 

Pilgrim

[Knifemaker]

I believe duty is service.... to your core values.

[Cheechoo]

And finally, is execution of duty, as Lee believed, the end-all, the purpose of a meaningful life?

 

 

After an ongoing existential crisis, I have concluded that the only purpose of a meaningful life is Love.....the only thing that really lives on after we are gone.

 

[Couchrocket]

Duty derived of moral concepts is different than duty of obligation from custom and/or authority.

Duty imposed by those holding moral concepts, or from custom, or from authority, is oppression.

 

Like the sense of moral duty that brought hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to Europe in WWII? Might want to think a second or third time on that one.

 

This thread is a veritable cornucopia of muddled thinking, albeit the logical outcome of postmodern monomania.

[smiller]

Well, can duty be imposed, or does something not become a duty until it is accepted?

I would say that it must be accepted, or at least that a moral code must be applied to make a duty valid. Using Scott's example of WWII, one might say that it would be reasonable to impose a duty on the individual to help defend their country, and indeed the world, from atrocities committed by the Axis powers. But what of the German or Japanese citizen? Did they have a similar duty to defend their nations' actions? Duty without the supervision of an individual moral compass isn't necessarily such a good thing.

[Pilgrim]

Well, can duty be imposed, or does something not become a duty until it is accepted?

I would say that it must be accepted, or at least that a moral code must be applied to make a duty valid. Using Scott's example of WWII, one might say that it would be reasonable to impose a duty on the individual to help defend their country, and indeed the world, from atrocities committed by the Axis powers. But what of the German or Japanese citizen? Did they have a similar duty to defend their nations' actions? Duty without the supervision of an individual moral compass isn't necessarily such a good thing.

 

I agree, Seth. Although my thought may not stand up to parsing by way of Webster's, I believe that an obligation can be imposed, but it does not become a duty until the obligation is freely accepted.

 

And that, to me, is why oaths, be they for marriage or military or law enforcement, or if they be a simple promise, are so important. They are an outward sign, given to the world, that one has accepted an obligation and will fulfill it. That matters. Those who walk away from an oath (that is, duty) should not be condemned in all cases, but that's a fair starting point unless reason shows otherwise.

 

Your point about applying a moral code is not clear to me, but I think you offer it as fair reason to decline an obligation (and thus not take on a duty), or to abandon the duty if it becomes clear that it will require violating one's moral code. Correct?

 

Pilgrim

[smiller]

Your point about applying a moral code is not clear to me, but I think you offer it as fair reason to decline an obligation (and thus not take on a duty), or to abandon the duty if it becomes clear that it will require violating one's moral code. Correct?

Not sure if I'm stepping into something here , but... yes.

[Pilgrim]

Your point about applying a moral code is not clear to me, but I think you offer it as fair reason to decline an obligation (and thus not take on a duty), or to abandon the duty if it becomes clear that it will require violating one's moral code. Correct?

Not sure if I'm stepping into something here , but... yes.

 

Not stepping into it with me; I can't speak for others.

 

The case of R.E. Lee is apposite. When he went to West Point (graduating as the only cadet never to have accumulated any demerits), he swore an oath to the United States. I don't know how it read then, but probably very similar to what exists now.

 

Then a situation arose, one not reasonably to be expected, that called upon a higher loyalty, and thus a higher duty. History tells us he agonized over it. Tough ethical decisions are seldom easy. It's not like deciding what movie to see, which is the hardest thing many of us ever have to make up our minds about.

 

Pilgrim