Anyone here who served in an armed forces? Just curious. :chin:

No, I said the right leaders should use everything available to them to rally people to their cause and instill a sense of duty in them. I might have used the term "manipulate", but that doesn't always mean unscrupulousness - it can just mean controlling something cleverly. — ToothyMaw

In Banno's defense, to speak about duty and to speak about the manipulation of motivation is to speak about two different things. The idea that, "We need good outcomes. X is a strong motivator, therefore X should be manipulated for the sake of good outcomes," in fact has nothing to do with the nature of X. X can be anything you like so long as it is a strong motivator. The idea is more truly about the manipulation of strong motivations for the sake of good outcomes, and is only about X in an incidental way.

Now using duty as a means to an end is rather ironic given that duty is supposed to be intrinsically contrary to such use. If a leader believes that someone has a duty to do something, and he tries to convince them of this, then he is being honest. If a leader believes that someone has no duty to do something, but he tries to convince them that they do, then he is being dishonest. He is being dishonest even if he is lying to them for a good end (good outcome). The dishonesty arises because he uses the word or concept 'duty' in a false sense, and he wishes them to falsely believe that they have a duty so that he can achieve his end, which he considers to be good.

Thus if duty is being recommended independently of what ought to be done (in a rather intrinsic sense), we are on shaky ground. If one is opposed to lying, then they should not attempt to make people believe that they have duties which they do not have. Couching the whole conversation in terms of good outcomes and utilizing duty as a means really runs the risk of this danger (and this equivocation).

"We need good outcomes. X is a strong motivator, therefore X should be manipulated for the sake of good outcomes," in fact has nothing to do with the nature of X. X can be anything you like so long as it is a strong motivator. The idea is more truly about the manipulation of strong motivations for the sake of good outcomes, and is only about X in an incidental way. — Leontiskos

It is not quite as incidental as it seems, because I am making an appeal to the duty of certain people to lead because they would do a lot of good in doing so - and appealing to their pre-existing ideas of duty is the best way. That has less to do with how effective duty is as a motivator and more to do with perceived ethical obligations. It is somewhat incidental, as you note, that a sense of duty would be what the leader tries to foster in those they lead, however.

using duty as a means to an end is rather ironic given that duty is supposed to be intrinsically contrary to such use. If a leader believes that someone has a duty to do something, and he tries to convince them of this, then he is being honest. If a leader believes that someone has no duty to do something, but he tries to convince them that they do, then he is being dishonest. He is being dishonest even if he is lying to them for a good end (good outcome). The dishonesty arises because he uses the word or concept 'duty' in a false sense, and he wishes them to falsely believe that they have a duty so that he can achieve his end, which he considers to be good. — Leontiskos

if duty is being recommended independently of what ought to be done (in a rather intrinsic sense), we are on shaky ground. — Leontiskos

Read my reply to :

If you follow a command- even an ethical one, you have to do it for a reason. Well, how do you know if that reason is "good" or not? Generally that more meta-ethical question has to do with issues dealing with universal principles. These universal principles, in turn, have to do with something more though. Simply being universal doesn't confer
— schopenhauer1

the meta-ethical root of ethical action and sensibility is the emotional component of compassion. Compassion applied to ethics, is not violating the content (dignity) of others. Violating this dignity would be things like not respecting autonomy of others, not respecting the suffering of others, etc. So that is how I think deontology is rooted. It can't simply be duty for duty's sake.
— schopenhauer1

Probably the best reply yet.

I agree with you. Duty is at best a vehicle for (likely deontological) moral convictions and an outlet for action, as duty for duty's sake is not sufficient to provide a meta-ethical base. Duty, I would still say, is the keystone of putting together a moral world, however, but must be guided by compassion and respect for the dignity of others. — ToothyMaw

In light of this, I would argue for authenticity and candor on the part of a leader, and, even if people are being cleverly controlled, there must be good reasons for doing so and, if the leader can supply these good reasons for one to throw their lot in with them, there will be no myth-making or noble lies.

The thing that is interesting about duty is how powerful it is, not that it is intrinsically moral as an end. One might argue that it is also a useful adaptation, but that kind of thing is far beyond my understanding.

These all sound good to me. I'd even be able to point to some examples of people that fit. — Moliere

Me too.

I suppose I'd just point out that we have quite a few leaders. But I don't recognize your list in many of them. And so this is the cause of doubt: it seems that we already have leaders who believe themselves to be all of these good qualities, but we're lamenting that they don't possess them. — Moliere

We have lots of people attempting to lead and influence, it's just not the right people? Is all that's stopping them is that they don't realize what their duty is? — Moliere

When one is actually given a measure of power and is exposed to the kind of game politics is, I think it is easy to become afraid of misusing that power and to play it safe. Furthermore, it is less a problem of vision than many people think, as many people have favorable ideas of what they want for the country, but rather an issue of not being spineless when you finally get to the point at which you could make a difference. People would throw their lot in with the pre-election Obama of 2008 nine times out of ten over a more principled leader merely because he expressed a fantastic vision in addition to magnetic charisma.

Is all that's stopping them is that they don't realize what their duty is? — Moliere

I'm not totally sure what it is, but I gave you my best guess. I'm just trying to appeal to their pre-existing feelings of duty because that seems to the most direct route to getting them to step up.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind hearing from some more soldiers either. There seems to be a paucity of them, oddly enough.

Heh. I suppose I'd say that it's only us chickens that have to step up, and that's the real problem. We're the leaders we have been waiting for -- we're just not as good as we want our leaders to be, so we feel inadequate to the task.

But all the other leaders from before that we honor were in similar shoes at one point.



That's because duty sucks. ;)

That has less to do with how effective duty is as a motivator and more to do with perceived ethical obligations. — ToothyMaw

Okay, fair enough.

Read my reply to ↪schopenhauer1 — ToothyMaw

Yes, I did read that exchange, and I think it is on point.

The thing that is interesting about duty is how powerful it is... — ToothyMaw

It seems to me that a sense of duty is powerful given the nature of duty, but at the same time a sense of duty is becoming harder and harder to find. Duty is powerful in a practical sense because it concerns precisely what ought to be done, but I find that a lot of people no longer experience a sense of duty, and this is especially true as familial ties continue to weaken.

I think contemporary philosophy is generally averse to duty and normative morality, and I wonder if this explains some of the motivation behind your "open letter." Is it in part an admonishment for philosophers to stop undermining the notion of duty, and to approach the idea more constructively?

It seems to me that a sense of duty is powerful given the nature of duty, but at the same time a sense of duty is becoming harder and harder to find. Duty is powerful in a practical sense because it concerns precisely what ought to be done, but I find that a lot of people no longer experience a sense of duty, and this is especially true as familial ties continue to weaken. — Leontiskos

Yes, I agree that people don't feel nearly as much of a sense of duty as could be expected or desired, but I don't think that it is all that difficult to instill something resembling it in people. In the OP I said people crave it, and I definitely still believe that - even if they do not know it.

I think contemporary philosophy is generally averse to duty and normative morality, and I wonder if this explains some of the motivation behind your "open letter." — Leontiskos

It occurred to me that I rarely, if ever on this forum, hear about the kind of duty I define in the OP or see people prescribe strong, traditional moral obligations towards leadership in a plain way. It is usually just so-and-so is evil, too extreme, too centrist, too censorious - and no one provides practical solutions, even if those solutions are just favorable tradeoffs. The principled leaders I have in mind are not perfect, but they are our best chance.

I don't really pay attention to what contemporary philosophers have to say unless I have to engage with what they have written directly. So, even though I would like to say my open letter was also intended to excoriate those philosophers who challenge the necessity of normative morality and duty and encourage the discussion of such concepts in good faith among them, it wasn't.

I did know, however, that the OP would be equivalent to throwing the gauntlet down against people like Banno, who seem to be staunchly opposed to any sort of strong, traditional moral convictions, specifically those convictions rooted in something other than the typical self-righteous, leftist dogma people dunk on all the time.

Heh. I suppose I'd say that it's only us chickens that have to step up, and that's the real problem. We're the leaders we have been waiting for -- we're just not as good as we want our leaders to be, so we feel inadequate to the task. — Moliere

No one would follow me, I'm afraid. But people will always step up when they think they need to. I just hope it is enough.

It occurred to me that I rarely, if ever on this forum, hear about the kind of duty I define in the OP or see people prescribe strong, traditional moral obligations towards leadership in a plain way. It is usually just so-and-so is evil, too extreme, too centrist, too censorious - and no one provides practical solutions, even if those solutions are just favorable tradeoffs. The principled leaders I have in mind are not perfect, but they are our best chance. — ToothyMaw

Some might not see it this way, but I find duty starting from things like being a parent and being there for your children. Or being there for your parents when you are old. Even being faithful and devoted to your spouse. And then helping people if you come to the sight of an accident, you do help total strangers.

In the OP I think many people perhaps crave for purpose, not duty. Especially in their jobs they want to have a purpose and not just some idiotic thing that they did their entire life to get money to feed themselves and their family. Purpose and duty are different. Something that has really that sense of duty and the duty issue is important is when you take an oath to do it. You usually take an oath to serve in the military. Or an oath to be a citizen (if not born to be one). When serving hamburgers in a fast-food joint you don't take an oath. But for example when becoming a doctor or a priest you might find yourself taking an oath.

One reason just why duty seems to be such an old cliché and nearly controversial is simply because we live in an ultra-individualist consumer society where nearly everything seems to be just an transaction. If not, by God, our individual rights are trampled!!!

Anyone here who served in an armed forces? Just curious. :chin: — jgill

If compulsory military service counts, then yes.

Anyone here who served in an armed forces? Just curious. :chin: — jgill

If compulsory military service counts, then yes. — ssu

Conscription was the law in the US in the 1950s, and I recall ROTC the first two years being required for all male students at the university at which I enrolled. I continued beyond this thinking I would have a better time of it being a junior officer than enlisted. In fact, my service opened a door into an attractive civilian career had I wished to pursue it.

But this line of thought is not what this thread is about. Sorry.

We haven't heard the late Victorian comic view on duty, so herewith

For duty, duty must be done;
The rule applies to every one,
And painful though that duty be,
To shirk the task were fiddle-de-dee!
To shirk the task were fiddle-de-dee!

Here's the way Gilbert & Sullivan put it to music -- unless you love G & S, after 1:47 or so, it's the usual nonsensical falderal.

In the OP I said people crave it, and I definitely still believe that - even if they do not know it. — ToothyMaw

Okay.

It is usually just so-and-so is evil, too extreme, too centrist, too censorious - and no one provides practical solutions, even if those solutions are just favorable tradeoffs. — ToothyMaw

Yes, I can see this as well. I suppose the difficulty is that if we are to go beyond "duty for duty's sake" then we are effectively required to proffer a moral argument, and this is difficult in the midst of such strong skepticism.

It is usually just so-and-so is evil, too extreme, too centrist, too censorious - and no one provides practical solutions, even if those solutions are just favorable tradeoffs.
— ToothyMaw

Yes, I can see this as well. I suppose the difficulty is that if we are to go beyond "duty for duty's sake" then we are effectively required to proffer a moral argument, and this is difficult in the midst of such strong skepticism. — Leontiskos

Yeah. Obviously this forum has a leftist bent, which is understandable, but we need good leaders, not just ethical ones. Not to mention there is no viable alternative to the two parties in power in the US. The divergence in policy from what people want because they must vote democrat or republican can be greater than that which would be the case voting for a third party candidate that they don't agree with totally. And you also have to ask yourself what is really important and necessary, and what can be addressed at a later, more convenient time.

For instance: should we do our best to mitigate the chances of nuclear Armageddon arising from the war in Ukraine? Should we continue pumping billions into what looks a lot like a proxy war and encourage Ukraine to fight to the last man? Should we concern ourselves with the culture war? Is it even useful to rail against wokeness?

Certainly there is room for comedy when it comes to anything, really. I'll just try not to feel like I'm being made fun of by people who lived more than a century ago.