On Duty
I don't submit this as a treatise on the subject, only some thoughts that have been rolling around in my head in response to my friend Alex's opinion on the matter of duty.
He rejects duty on the basis that it is a form of submission. His belief that the self and the understanding thereof is the ultimate greatest goal of existence leads him to the logical conclusion that duty because it is a form of submission has no place in the life of an individual.
Although I wouldn't classify myself as a "greatest-gooder" I do disagree with the idea that duty has no place in one's life. Individuals submit to a variety of systems on a daily basis. The laws that govern the nation, the traffic signals and rules are simple examles of systems that many submit to on a daily basis.(Copyeditors submit themselves to the dictates of style guides and grammar) These submissions not only contributes to the benefit of everyone, but it also contributes to the well being of the person who submits to it.
I agree that one should not run about willy-nilly following the whims of the masses. However, when the purpose is true and good then what is wrong with submitting to the greater goal? If submitting the self should result in the benefit of others, and also the self, then what is the harm of duty?
When is submission bad? When it strips members of society of their indiviual talents and creativity. Submission is a bad thing when it destroys freedom of thought and existence. There are numerous literary examples of this - Huxely's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984 and Rand's The Fountainhead. Rand is particularly forceful in her arguments about the supremacy of the individual over the general rabble.
I believe that there are causes that are more than "vaporous and transient" to use Alex's words. Helping others when it is in one's power to do so, protecting the environment for future generations by lowering pollution and waste are just a couple of examples.
Admittedly, my decision to teach school next year is largely formed out of my concept of duty.
Do I relinquish my liberties as an individual? No. Do I believe that my government and constitution grant me liberties? Not really. The government and constitution simply acknowledge that I possess them. Were there no government or constitution I would still retain those certain "inalienable rights" endowed to me as a member of the human race.
Finally, I believe that there are causes in which the result of submission surpasses the seeking of the self. Arguably, this submission for the greater good may be seen in the Civil Rights movement, the suffrage movement and the abolitionist movement just to name a few.
2.15.2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Very true. I hate the word "submission" generally, but you make it clear that submission is important and ordinary, not just a terrifying act of relinquishing freedoms. I had forgotten the eloquence of former FARCers now departed from CoMo.
Bode Miller is an incredible Jack-Ass.
"Helping others when it is in one's power to do so."
Why? So when they die in 50 years, or tommorow, they're marginally happier? for example, i can't make a poor person rich, and even if i could, who's to say that a poor person wouldnt just squander their newfound wealth? it's happened before; look at professional athletes.
"Protecting the environment for future generations by lowering pollution and waste"
Again, why? The sun will expand into a red giant, engulf the solar system and destroy everything in a few billion years. And a few billion more later, the universe may well collapse on itself, obliterating time, space, physics, gravity, everything. Saving the environment now, in 100 yrs, or even 100,000 yrs will do nothing to prevent the ultimate fate of earth, which is an immense firey death.
I'm not trying to belittle your interest in doing these things; I just find it all kind of pointless.
I haven't checked the comments on this entry since it first came up, so forgive me if I'm contributing to a long-dead conversation, but I had to add something to Alex's comment. You couldn't be more right about the inherent pointlessness of human existence. We are nothing more than inanimate matter slowly risen into consciousness through chance and time, and ultimately, we play no great role in the cosmos. If the sun exploded tomorrow, the universe would not miss us. I think one of the great tragedies of our history is the amount of time people have spent looking for some grand purpose behind it all, some pre-ordained meaning. There isn't one.
However, that said, most people, myself, I think would agree that that's a pretty bleak idea. Entirely accurate, but bleak. Our lives may not have meaning, but we want them to. So we find a meaning for them. We make up a purpose of our own.
Now what that purpose is depends on the individual, but for most people, it tends to mean grafting oneself onto something bigger than the self, a theoretically loftier goal of some sort. Our lives are so short, but maybe by becoming part of something more lasting (though admittedly temporal, as all things are) we can find that greater purpose we seek.
Sara is taking what I would argue is one of the more valid approaches. She has political, philosophical, and religious ideals that she makes a part of her life and hopes live on when she's gone, but ultimately, her outlook is humanitarian. She feels that regardless of whether our lives mean something or not, we're here, we're alive. So the best thing we can do, for the good of the species as a whole, is to make those lives as comfortable and pleasant as possible for the greatest number of people we can. It's ultilitarianism. The species is it's own point, it's own goal. It's a flawed one, but I think most people would agree that it's better than nothing.
Anyway. That's my thing. You can go about your business now.
Post a Comment