Love vs. Duty

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’ve been thinking about the interrelated concepts of love and duty.

It does often seem as if moral duty is a crude substitute for love.

Sometimes duty can be a more formal concept than love, it can guide behavior in a more specific way than can love, which is usually more amorphous. And often those who discard traditions and social norms do so in the name of love as, for example, when a divorcee remaries. On the other hand, Paul argued for a rejection of most of the duties of the OT.
Perhaps duty can best be understood as a training device that, ideally, can ultimately be discarded? Or is duty more than that?

But it is interesting that the phrase “God is Love” would not be rendered as “God is Duty”. There is a sense in which love is a superior motive to duty.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve been thinking about the interrelated concepts of love and duty.

It does often seem as if moral duty is a crude substitute for love.

Sometimes duty can be a more formal concept than love, it can guide behavior in a more specific way than can love, which is usually more amorphous. And often those who discard traditions and social norms do so in the name of love as, for example, when a divorcee remaries. On the other hand, Paul argued for a rejection of most of the duties of the OT.
Perhaps duty can best be understood as a training device that, ideally, can ultimately be discarded? Or is duty more than that?

But it is interesting that the phrase “God is Love” would not be rendered as “God is Duty”. There is a sense in which love is a superior motive to duty.

I think duty is far more than a training device because Jesus said:

“If you love me keep my commandments”… (not only now but always)

 

[VonDerTann]

Hey Bubba! Great question IMHO. I think the concept of duty gets overlooked in US society (I don’t know where you are…me, I always liked the concept of “doing one’s duty;” it’s my German ancestry…

I think what we call “doing one’s duty” is part of natural law/conscience, i.e., “doing that which needs to be done,” or “doing what one ought to do,” but where failing to do the “thing which needs to be done” is not necessarily a moral failing (or a sin, if you prefer), although it can be(depending on circumstances).

I would define it as "doing a morally acceptable task, at some sacrifice, when it is what God would prefer that we do when faced with the circumstances and a choice of actions."

Phrased differently, IMHO “doing one’s duty” involves A) doing a morally acceptable task when failing to do so would be a sin or unwise; or B) doing a “more acceptable” task in a setting where there are 2 or more possible courses of action, neither of which is morally wrong or a sin but where one choice is clearly morally superior to the other.

Examples of “doing one’s duty,” totally shooting from the hip, where there is a moral choice and an immoral (or less moral) choice:

1. A ship crewman who stays in the engine room of the sinking ship, working to keep power on to ensure passengers can take to the lifeboats;
2. A soldier who obeys orders to fight a delaying action while other soldiers escape;
3. A judge who neutrally adheres to the rule of law, without allowing personal subjective feelings consciously influence him/her.

Examples where there is likely no moral imperative but several choices, some better than others:

1. Attending funerals of those close friends, etc.;
2. Doing what society regards as polite or kind behavior in certain social situations, i.e., sending a thank you note when given a gift; giving a gift to a person where it might be appreciated or expected (giving a small gift to a teacher of my child at the school year’s end);

My $0.02.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Hey Bubba! Great question IMHO. I think the concept of duty gets overlooked in US society (I don’t know where you are…me, I always liked the concept of “doing one’s duty;” it’s my German ancestry…

I think what we call “doing one’s duty” is part of natural law/conscience, i.e., “doing that which needs to be done,” or “doing what one ought to do,” but where failing to do the “thing which needs to be done” is not necessarily a moral failing (or a sin, if you prefer), although it can be(depending on circumstances).

I would define it as "doing a morally acceptable task, at some sacrifice, when it is what God would prefer that we do when faced with the circumstances and a choice of actions."

Phrased differently, IMHO “doing one’s duty” involves A) doing a morally acceptable task when failing to do so would be a sin or unwise; or B) doing a “more acceptable” task in a setting where there are 2 or more possible courses of action, neither of which is morally wrong or a sin but where one choice is clearly morally superior to the other.

Examples of “doing one’s duty,” totally shooting from the hip, where there is a moral choice and an immoral (or less moral) choice:

1. A ship crewman who stays in the engine room of the sinking ship, working to keep power on to ensure passengers can take to the lifeboats;
2. A soldier who obeys orders to fight a delaying action while other soldiers escape;
3. A judge who neutrally adheres to the rule of law, without allowing personal subjective feelings consciously influence him/her.

Examples where there is likely no moral imperative but several choices, some better than others:

1. Attending funerals of those close friends, etc.;
2. Doing what society regards as polite or kind behavior in certain social situations, i.e., sending a thank you note when given a gift; giving a gift to a person where it might be appreciated or expected (giving a small gift to a teacher of my child at the school year’s end);

My $0.02.

You make a number of good points worthy of further discussion but before that, I’d like to pose a variation on my question:

Can a duty always be reexpressed as love plus knowledge? Is it not the case that there is some human beneficiary of duty fulfillment? For example, one might say that attending the funeral of a friend is an expression of love. But maybe you loved your friend but you are unclear on the funeral thing so the duty is a guideline to the expression of love. “This is a funeral mass for your friend Joe who passed away last night, you should attend.” Similarly for your social etiquette example.

 

[VonDerTann]

Bubba, you write:

“Can a duty always be reexpressed as love plus knowledge?”
–I’m not sure I’d agree; I guess it’s how you define love. Also, the “love” aspect may not be readily apparent. For example, I personally believe we have a duty to humanely “put down” old suffering pets. It’s hard to see love there, but it exists nonetheless, i.e., I love my dog and put it down so as to avoid it needlessly suffering.

–A better example springs to mind, which makes me unsure of answering your question affirmatively: Say some girl likes me, and is convinced I’m “the one for her.” For any number of reasons…I don’t hate her but I am at least convinced she’s not the one for me. I think it’s my duty to “let her down easy,” not lead her on, “use her,” etc., or even go out with her to make her feel good, or just for basic companionship, because she will be inevitably heartbroken. To quote that brilliant philosopher Nick Lowe…“you gotta be cruel to be kind.” If I do this to her…have I been loving? Probably, but she’ll still hate me for it.

–Maybe we can agree that duty can be expressed as "acting on a loving intent while possessing knowledge [not sure what we need to know, though].

“Is it not the case that there is some human beneficiary of duty fulfillment?”
–In most cases yes, but I’m thinking of my dog I put down. If you simply delete “human,” I’d agree with your statement. You could even have God be the “beneficiary.” The benefit could be conveyed upon something inchoate or esoteric like “society” or “the rule of law,” who would presumably benefit when the judge neutrally applies the law, even if the parties to the trial (both of them!) may not like the outcome.

“…so the duty is a guideline to the expression of love. “This is a funeral mass for your friend Joe who passed away last night, you should attend.” Similarly for your social etiquette example.”
–Thinking about this, that’s a fair idea, and I can probably accept that.

 

[carguy]

Well for me I believe it is my duty to help those that I love. I don’t know if that helps you, but you can really ever go wrong with loving.:twocents:

 

[VonDerTann]

The problem IMHO, Carguy, is that helping those we love can be nothing more than enabling bad behavior, in examples we see every day:

1. My brother wants another “loan” to pay off credit card debts or get out of foreclosure (he bought too big a house). I have money to lend. Is it my duty to give him money, at all? He claims to need “help.”
2. My daughter wants to date a really bad guy and is threatening all sorts of bad behavior if she’s not allowed to see him. Is it my duty to help her? It’s my duty, but how is my duty best manifested?
3. I see a panhandler. He is begging for $. Is it my duty to help & give $ to him? If you say “yes,” what if he is holding a sign saying “please give $ for food,” but he also reeks of booze and he is clearly drunk.

Morality, like life, is complex, and there are often a multitude of choices we can make from the same situation.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well for me I believe it is my duty to help those that I love. I don’t know if that helps you, but you can really ever go wrong with loving.:twocents:

Which is similar to:

I think duty is far more than a training device because Jesus said: “If you love me keep my commandments”… (not only now but always)

But notice, here, that love is being cast in terms of duty. Or, to put it another way, people understood duty first and so love was presented in terms of duty. (I don’t mean that ancient people had no concept of love but certainly that they had no concept of a general love for everyman.)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

“Can a duty always be reexpressed as love plus knowledge?”
–I’m not sure I’d agree; I guess it’s how you define love. Also, the “love” aspect may not be readily apparent. For example, I personally believe we have a duty to humanely “put down” old suffering pets. It’s hard to see love there, but it exists nonetheless, i.e., I love my dog and put it down so as to avoid it needlessly suffering.

I think you answered your own question there. You love your dog so you hate to see it suffer. (And one could argue that it is an act of love toward others who feel similarly, i.e. the children.) You take it on your shoulders to end the suffering to relive their empathetic suffering.

–A better example springs to mind, which makes me unsure of answering your question affirmatively: Say some girl likes me, and is convinced I’m “the one for her.” For any number of reasons…I don’t hate her but I am at least convinced she’s not the one for me. I think it’s my duty to “let her down easy,” not lead her on, “use her,” etc., or even go out with her to make her feel good, or just for basic companionship, because she will be inevitably heartbroken. To quote that brilliant philosopher Nick Lowe…“you gotta be cruel to be kind.” If I do this to her…have I been loving? Probably, but she’ll still hate me for it.
–Maybe we can agree that duty can be expressed as "acting on a loving intent while possessing knowledge [not sure what we need to know, though].

This is where I am headed with this. Of course, unlike God, our knowledge is limited so we rely on crude rules to guide us and these, I am thinking, are duties.

“Is it not the case that there is some human beneficiary of duty fulfillment?”
–In most cases yes, but I’m thinking of my dog I put down. If you simply delete “human,” I’d agree with your statement. You could even have God be the “beneficiary.” The benefit could be conveyed upon something inchoate or esoteric like “society” or “the rule of law,” who would presumably benefit when the judge neutrally applies the law, even if the parties to the trial (both of them!) may not like the outcome.

This is a crucial point. My hypothesis would be falsified by a counter-example. But I don’t think we can say that God is the beneficiary of anything we do. “The Sabbath was made for Man” and all. And “society” is simply a vague expression of other humans.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The problem IMHO, Carguy, is that helping those we love can be nothing more than enabling bad behavior, in examples we see every day:

1. My brother wants another “loan” to pay off credit card debts or get out of foreclosure (he bought too big a house). I have money to lend. Is it my duty to give him money, at all? He claims to need “help.”
2. My daughter wants to date a really bad guy and is threatening all sorts of bad behavior if she’s not allowed to see him. Is it my duty to help her? It’s my duty, but how is my duty best manifested?
3. I see a panhandler. He is begging for $. Is it my duty to help & give $ to him? If you say “yes,” what if he is holding a sign saying “please give $ for food,” but he also reeks of booze and he is clearly drunk.

Morality, like life, is complex, and there are often a multitude of choices we can make from the same situation.

This is a very valid point which I would describe as stupid love. Often people try to invoke love as an explanation for what they do or as an alternative to social norms but love can be blind, as they say. God’s love is not stupid love, it is an omniscient love. Our love can be very stupid which, I would suggest, is why we rely on traditions and norms etc. and not on love alone.