I will define duty as: a feeling of obligation brought about by expectation that is irreducible; it exists only as a meta-construction - as recursive and a sum of its parts - and yet it is a very basic concept understood by pretty much everybody…The best leaders know that duty begets duty — ToothyMaw

Why do I hear marching music in my head when I read this?

But you have a moral obligation by virtue of all the good you could do - and no one gives a damn if playing the game makes you uncomfortable — ToothyMaw

Sorry, but I am just too old and infirm. But thanks for asking. :cool:

I say that the right people in the right positions to lead — ToothyMaw

This is the problem. There is no general agreement as to who the right people are.

But you have a moral obligation by virtue of all the good you could do ... — ToothyMaw

What some might consider good others might not.

Why do I hear marching music in my head when I read this? — Joshs

Yes, it reads quite macho. You can smell the sigma male aftershave. :cool:

Which is fine when counterbalanced by an example of a mother walking through a store trying to shop with one baby in her arms, and two other children causing various levels of mayhem. This after they have fed from her breasts, and squeezed through a painfully small opening in her body, and demand constant attention. She falls asleep worrying about their future.

That’s above and beyond the call of duty, imho. :heart:

Some say that the people might need to rise up in the United States because we are increasingly having to choose between fascism and neoliberalism - all the while the oligarchs line their pockets. — ToothyMaw

I don't think neo-liberalism is incompatible with fascism. Not enough of a choice there for me.

I will define duty as: a feeling of obligation brought about by expectation that is irreducible; it exists only as a meta-construction - as recursive and a sum of its parts - and yet it is a very basic concept understood by pretty much everybody. — ToothyMaw

I can't make much sense out of your definition of duty. The 'intuition that we ought to do a particular thing' perhaps? Of course duty is value free and it can be attached to any kind of person or action.

everyone craves duty — ToothyMaw

How can you demonstrate that everyone craves duty? Is duty not just a sublimation for purpose? Everyone, perhaps, craves purpose?

The best leaders know that duty begets duty. — ToothyMaw

Not sure what that means. Can you provide an example of a leader doing such?

I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of — ToothyMaw

Ok. What’s your evidence for this? Where’s the argument? If we’re just to accept this — to what end? What’s the point?

Maybe I missed something in the OP.

Are you saying that we all are predominately motivated by a sense of duty or do you just mean to say that we all introject some sense of duty and that ideally it should supersede all other motives if, on account of our social natures, we want to thrive? Or are you making a categorical Kantian-type claim that reason itself issues the imperative that duty be paramount?

Also, I think it needs to be pointed out that duty and what we ought to do are not at all synonymous.

I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of — ToothyMaw

That's no more than an uninteresting fact about your thinking, showing a lack of imagination on your part. Lust, thirst and hunger come to mind as much greater sources of motivation.

Also, duty is a conceptually odd critter. Your duty is what you ought to do; and what ought you do? Your duty, of course. It doesn't get us anywhere. Indeed, looking at how "duty" is usually used, it's more about what other folk think you ought do than what you think you ought do. "It's your duty" is used to cajole folk into acting against their own better judgement.

Indeed.

I don't think neo-liberalism is incompatible with fascism. Not enough of a choice there for me. — Tom Storm

:razz: If that's the choice you face, you are properly fucked.

A laughable OP. Only, it's no joke.

Maybe I missed something in the OP. — Mikie

The argument is clear, and valid: Doing your duty is you first and highest duty.

Just not all that convincing.

Your OP makes it my duty to quote "James Thurber, an American humorist, cartoonist, author, playwright, and journalist known for his quirky and relatable characters and themes." The. quote comes from his 1940 story about a very dutiful bloodhound. The duty-ridden (or obsessive compulsive) beast wore himself out following an endless trail all over the world.

The paths of glory at least lead to the grave. The paths of duty may not get you anywhere.

Thurber might be referencing a line from Thomas Grey's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard

The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

duty ... exists only as a meta-construction - as recursive and a sum of its parts — ToothyMaw

I'm sorry, but I won't die for a meta-construction, even a recursive one.

I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of, whether it is duty to the tribe, an ideal, a spouse, etc., and should be nurtured wherever it exists to good ends. — ToothyMaw

I have nothing against duty--I've performed my duties in different contexts many times--but I think there are a number of stronger motivators: fear, anger, hunger lust, greed--your basic 7 deadly sins: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth--in that order.

All of these are negative (though lust is hard to beat). Love is a powerful motivator too.

We often have conflicting duties. Our employer thinks it our duty to perform faithful service in exchange for paying us a meager share of the wealth we create. Institutions expect loyalty (a duty) from their agents. Whose duty comes first? The duty to render good service in exchange for pay, or the duty to disrupt the business to further the interests of other workers, like one's union comrades?

In retrospect, I sometimes chose the wrong set of duties, in situations where my choice of duty led to inferior results for everyone concerned. At the time it seemed like a good idea. Generally, though, when people start talking about "duty" I detect the acrid odor of social control.

Duty is just as loyal a servant to evil as it is to good, that's something you'd do well to remember.

Duty is the strongest motivator, you claim? It seems you're defining duty as something that one has, even if they themselves don't think so.

But you have a moral obligation by virtue of all the good you could do - and no one gives a damn if playing the game makes you uncomfortable. — ToothyMaw

By your own account, there is a need for action:

Some say that the people might need to rise up in the United States because we are increasingly having to choose between fascism and neoliberalism - all the while the oligarchs line their pockets. — ToothyMaw

If duty is such a strong motivator, and one such duty is to do good, why are the current circumstances so in dire need of "rising up"? Has that duty of good-doing been inactive until now? Was it impotent?

I think you only wish that duty was the strongest motivator. "If it was, and this OP was unnecessary, how nice that would be".

Good points. There seems to be a hierarchy of duty. How does one determine which one should override the other?

I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of, whether it is duty to the tribe, an ideal, a spouse, etc., and should be nurtured wherever it exists to good ends. — ToothyMaw

This is certainly not true of me. Motivation comes from inside. It comes from love, empathy, fear, hunger, hate, shame, guilt, friendship, fellow feeling, affection... Loyalty, responsibility, kindness grow out of love, friendship, affection. A desire to do good for people we care about. Duty, morality, judgment grow out of fear, guilt, shame. A desire to avoid the judgment of others.

How can you say:

Motivation comes from inside. — T Clark

Then say:

A desire to avoid the judgment of others. — T Clark

Isn't that contradictory?

Generally, though, when people start talking about "duty" I detect the acrid odor of social control. — BC

Definitely can appear that way. Like when the duty of loyalty results in bad things for the loyal one. But this kind of duty can be directed towards non-social things, particularly ideas that alienate the dutiful one from the social and/or human. And this begs that our understanding of duty should be able to account for things that lack the acrid odor of social control.

The sense of duty that one feels is purely psychological. It is an internal state state directed at service to an objective, whether social or otherwise. However, it is not the relation of the dutiful one toward his objective that matters, rather it is his commitment to his duty that is important. I suppose, from this perspective, I can understand the op definition.

I will define duty as: a feeling of obligation brought about by expectation that is irreducible — ToothyMaw

It is the obligation that is irreducible because in the mind of the dutiful, he is making the greatest commitment one can make. And given the few things man has control over in his life, commitment to his duty, in victory or failure, is one of those things one can completely self-determine. The objective or expectation can alter and shift, or become unattainable, or even be a matter of unintelligible faith, but the commitment to the sense of duty always remains under the individual's control.

If duty is such a strong motivator, and one such duty is to do good, why are the current circumstances so in dire need of "rising up"? Has that duty of good-doing been inactive until now? Was it impotent? — Judaka

The sense of duty, in this case, was impotent. Too small and weak to command any serious commitment from the dutiful types.

Are you saying that we all are predominately motivated by a sense of duty or do you just mean to say that we all introject some sense of duty and that ideally it should supersede all other motives if, on account of our social natures, we want to thrive? Or are you making a categorical Kantian-type claim that reason itself issues the imperative that duty be paramount? — Janus

The latter seems to be more likely. But he may be going deeper to the absolute nature of dutifulness (which he has articulated rather vurgarly as to be confusing: viz. "duty"), and not to a moral imperative, if you get my meaning. [Add.: Not everyone is capable of dutifulness] And in that sense, there IS naery a thing that we can point to as a greater motis operandi.

don't ever forget how easiy it is to fake one's dutifulness. It is one of the simplest and most detrimental deceptions.

I think you guys misunderstand - and this is not a call to militarism or nationalism. I'm saying that the leaders who can make a difference in the fight between two or more bad options, in a situation in which people are sick of choosing the lesser of two evils, those leaders who recognize their duty to the people they can benefit can inspire others to also do their duty - which I believe is to shrug off the mantle of US hegemony, a disregard for the working people, general befuddlement caused by the oligarchs' emphasis on the distraction that is the culture war, and the blocking of efforts to preserve the planet.

I'm calling out the leaders, not the people. And yes, I do maintain that duty is the most powerful motivator, as it can override just about any other consideration if the human is manipulated correctly. Remember the Third Wave experiment? In that instance it was used to harm, but such manipulations can be used for good. Many, if not most, of us have grown complacent, and good leaders with the peoples' best interests at heart need to intervene - before a nasty, fascistic one does.

duty ... exists only as a meta-construction - as recursive and a sum of its parts
— ToothyMaw

I'm sorry, but I won't die for a meta-construction, even a recursive one. — BC

I'm not suggesting anyone sacrifice themselves. I suggest that we organize strikes and consolidate our efforts around some good prospects and vote them in to effect change. No dying required.

A laughable OP. Only, it's no joke. — Banno

I see you stopped by to offer absolutely nothing, as usual.

If duty is such a strong motivator, and one such duty is to do good, why are the current circumstances so in dire need of "rising up"? Has that duty of good-doing been inactive until now? Was it impotent? — Judaka

The people are distracted, disillusioned, and misled in a system that presents false dilemmas and destroys any attempts the common people make to better their lives. We live under the yoke of the corporation and the billionaire, both of which have disproportionate impacts on policy such that getting anything off the ground is a tremendous effort - and just when we think we might win our prospects get shot in the back of the head by corporatist, career politicians. So, I say that duty has been here all along, it has mostly just lain dormant - but it flares up sporadically, giving us insight into what could be if the right man or woman came along.

duty is a conceptually odd critter. Your duty is what you ought to do; and what ought you do? Your duty, of course. It doesn't get us anywhere. Indeed, looking at how "duty" is usually used, it's more about what other folk think you ought do than what you think you ought do. "It's your duty" is used to cajole folk into acting against their own better judgement. — Banno

I literally define how I use the term, and you redefine it and complain that I'm trying to advocate for cajoling people into acting against their own better judgement? Nowhere do I say that duty is what one "ought" to do, but rather is a subjective motivator that can be manipulated by good leaders to good ends - which is what I'm actually advocating for here. I do, however, say that some leaders have a more specific obligation - which is the result of the tremendous amount of good they could do if they tried. If they want to ignore that, then so be it; I'm not telling anyone what to do.

I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of, whether it is duty to the tribe, an ideal, a spouse, etc., and should be nurtured wherever it exists to good ends. — ToothyMaw

As others have indicated,, , this is really incorrect. I would characterize the motivator for action as "ambition", or even "spirit", but that's just my personal preference of words. The important point is that the motivator has personal a base, not a relation to something external like "duty".

"Duty" is better described as a director of action rather than a motivator of action. A person with no sense of duty might still be highly motivated to act. So if you want to talk about "duty", you ought to be able to make this distinction, between being motivated to act, ambitious, and being directed in your actions by some sort of sense of duty. Then we could discuss how ambitions are directed. Accordingly, the following paragraph doesn't make much sense:

Soldiers, office clerks, garbage men, engineers - everyone craves duty, and those who can deliver the correct conditions are the most potent agents. Some say that the people might need to rise up in the United States because we are increasingly having to choose between fascism and neoliberalism - all the while the oligarchs line their pockets. — ToothyMaw

What do you think "everyone craves duty" actually means? People crave things, and this may or may not influence their ambition. It "may not" influence their ambition in cases of people who are lazy, or something like that, and so they still do not act on their cravings. But how would you say that "duty" relates to what people crave? Not only do I see no necessary relation here, but I see no relationship at all, due to the subjective nature of individuals and cravings. It's just like as if you are saying 'everyone craves chocolate ice cream'. It's really wrong on multiple levels.

And yes, I do maintain that duty is the most powerful motivator, as it can override just about any other consideration if the human is manipulated correctly. Remember the Third Wave experiment? — ToothyMaw

If the "Third Wave experiment" supports what you say, then maybe you need to describe it.

I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of, whether it is duty to the tribe, an ideal, a spouse, etc., and should be nurtured wherever it exists to good ends.
— ToothyMaw

As others have indicated,↪Banno, ↪T Clark, this is really incorrect. I would characterize the motivator for action as "ambition", or even "spirit", but that's just my personal preference of words. The important point is that the motivator has personal a base, not a relation to something external like "duty". — Metaphysician Undercover

When I claim that duty is the single strongest motivator, I do not mean that it cancels out every other motivator, or even that it generally prevails over other motivators. Furthermore, according to the way I define "duty" it is personal, as it involves both expectations and how one internalizes those expectations. I contend that what makes duty powerful is that duty leads people to put themselves in all kinds of horrible or uncomfortable positions and situations more than anything else. For instance, a man might get inundated with motivational messages about how positive masculinity can be and how he needs to be able to personally protect his family, which he might view largely as pushback against whatever modern feminist arguments might be cited. This could lead to a man adopting any number of life-changing, traditionally masculine activities, like martial arts or lifting. And if you think that getting up early in the morning and getting strangled over and over again in myriad, potentially painful ways doesn't require the suppression of some basic human instincts, then you haven't hit the mats.

I suppose it could also be viewed as a modifier for more basic motivations. For instance, one might love their child and feel they have a duty to do right by that child, but I would also say that those two things - the parent's duty towards the child and the parent's love - are inextricable, as the parent has certain expectations for themselves, such as that they must provide for the child and be emotionally present for them, that are derived from love. These expectations don't have to be external and still give rise to intense feelings of duty.

"Duty" is better described as a director of action rather than a motivator of action. A person with no sense of duty might still be highly motivated to act. — Metaphysician Undercover

That some people are highly motivated without feeling duty says nothing about the power of duty, just as the claim that, say, there are more roses in a garden than any other type of flower is not affected by the claim that there are other types of flowers in a garden. That this "garden" could hypothetically have a different composition I grant, but all of the flowers need not be roses for most of them to be.

What do you think "everyone craves duty" actually means? People crave things, and this may or may not influence their ambition. It "may not" influence their ambition in cases of people who are lazy, or something like that, and so they still do not act on their cravings. But how would you say that "duty" relates to what people crave? Not only do I see no necessary relation here, but I see no relationship at all, due to the subjective nature of individuals and cravings. It's just like as if you are saying 'everyone craves chocolate ice cream'. It's really wrong on multiple levels. — Metaphysician Undercover

But if everyone really did crave chocolate ice cream whether they knew it or not, would it be wrong to say so?

If the "Third Wave experiment" supports what you say, then maybe you need to describe it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Third Wave

I'm calling out the leaders, not the people. And yes, I do maintain that duty is the most powerful motivator, as it can override just about any other consideration if the human is manipulated correctly. Remember the Third Wave experiment? In that instance it was used to harm, but such manipulations can be used for good. Many, if not most, of us have grown complacent, and good leaders with the peoples' best interests at heart need to intervene - before a nasty, fascistic one does. — ToothyMaw

Nowhere do I say that duty is what one "ought" to do, but rather is a subjective motivator that can be manipulated by good leaders to good ends - which is what I'm actually advocating for here. — ToothyMaw

So duty is a kind of noble lie, then?

What "duty is a noble lie"? Duty is a concept and it is as real as we make it. You know, a concept, an abstract idea, not a tangible reality that either exists or does not exist like a broken vase is either broken or it is not broken.

It, whatever the concept may be, is as we make it, or as we see it, and there is nothing that can not be trashed. However, trashing something such as the notion of duty does not make that something a lie. It just means the person who does not enjoy a sense of duty does not have that experience. Same as one person can enjoy a setting sun while another person may be a sourpuss and have no sense of pleasure in watching the sunset.

A leader's duty is to convey the concept of duty and explain how to put it into action so that the sense of duty is experienced and felt. This is true of all virtues. They must be named before we can be conscious of them and then we must act on the virtue to experience its fuller meaning.

Personally, I love having a sense of duty and I would make knowledge of duty and virtues part of education. There is no god that makes it as it is. We make it as it is. The concepts are as real as we make them. Or we can make everything really bad but why would anyone intentionally do that?

So duty is a kind of noble lie, then? — Moliere

Not necessarily. If peoples' existing sense of duty is cynically exploited in the way Banno seems to think it is, then yes. If one is genuinely trying to instill a sense of duty for a good, substantial reason, then no. Also, what said. These concepts can be real to one person and not another and it doesn't diminish the importance of duty to those who are attuned to it.

Why do I hear marching music in my head when I read this? — Joshs

As a woman who was a daughter, mother, and grandmother, I strongly believe we need the concept of family duties. I dearly wish the people who deliver my mail had the sense of duty that they had in days of old. I strongly wish our journalist would return to understanding their duty, to tell the truth so we can make good decisions.

When people understand their duties, we are defending our democracy and that is something the military can not do.

. If one is genuinely trying to instill a sense of duty for a good, substantial reason, then no. — ToothyMaw

I think that's pretty much what a noble lie amounts to: it's technically a lie, but it's for a good, substantial reason of drawing the people towards what's good. Since your account asks leaders to instill goodness in others through manipulation it seemed to fit.

A cynical exploitation would not be a noble lie, but just a lie.

These concepts can be real to one person and not another and it doesn't diminish the importance of duty to those who are attuned to it. — ToothyMaw

I'm going to try and do a little philosophy with this sentence, if you don't mind.

Something that's confusing to me here is "concepts can be real" -- not the relativism, but just that sentence alone. My guess is you're saying duty is not a noble lie because duty is real, in some sense. So duty is real for some people, and not real for others. Is that correct?

I will define duty as: a feeling of obligation brought about by expectation that is irreducible; it exists only as a meta-construction - as recursive and a sum of its parts - and yet it is a very basic concept understood by pretty much everybody. What the obligation is, how intense the feelings are, and what expectations give rise to those feelings is variable, but there is what I see as a common thread: proximity to worthy causes and charismatic leaders. — ToothyMaw

I say that the right people in the right positions to lead need to stand up and allow us some redemption. — ToothyMaw

Interesting, but I don’t see why a person’s sense of duty needs to be controlled, redeemed, or influenced by some kind of ideal leader. “the right people in the right position to lead”, as you write.

And who are these “right people”? Any examples? Are they ‘true patriots’?
Are you referring to the USA and its upcoming elections, or any country?
Some further description might help.

Are there some people out there somewhere beyond the grasp of greed?
The whole system seems to be built on greed, as far as one can tell.

Are the corporations going to work with this leader?
Is he a total revolutionary or will he make minor adjustments to the current system?
And are they willing to serve the greater good? (whatever that is).

Or they just another politician?