See Through Duty
Duty is something you are under obligation to do.
Duty is that which you must get no thanks for.
If there are no duties then there is no free will. If we do not have the freedom to carry out some good action, then we have no duty to carry it out. If we do not have the freedom to carry out some good action BECAUSE IT IS GOOD AND NOT JUST FOR OTHER REASONS EG SOCIAL PRESSURES then we have no duty to carry it out. We have no duty to think about carrying it out either. Without having the freedom to do something bad and cruel, then we have no duty to avoid doing so. There is more to good and bad than morality. It would be bad then in a sense if we did not have the duty to do good.
Duty according to many philosophers is set by a law or by
the mind of an authority. They say a duty tells you that an act is valuable or
meaningful so you must do it. But suppose there was no person who has authority.
Then all you would have is the law. It is not your fault there is no person to
give duties so you have to make do with laws. It would be odd to say that you
need both law and the person in authority both. Half a reason to do something is
fine if you cannot get any further. There is no absolute need then for a God or
anybody to make rules. If you should care for your parents who fed you, this
should is more important than anybody commanding it or saying it is what you
should do. They cannot tell you what you should do unless the should is above
even their authority.
Christianity claims that if there is no God there are no fundamental moral
duties. But they contradict this by saying we can only believe that God exists
or that Christianity is true. This means they are not certain of the duties -
they merely believe they are duties. To sum up, they are saying there are no
moral duties unless you believe in them. Even if it is true that there are no
fundamental moral duties without God, the fact that we are forced to depend on
faith in him is an obstacle. A moral duty is something you are not supposed to
believe in but something you must know is true. If belief is enough then what if
I believe I have a moral duty to bomb cancer wards?
Society tells you have a duty not to steal and you have a duty to look after
your children and your parents etc. Society sees a difference between duty and
generosity. If you look after your children you are only doing your duty. If you
give a hundred dollars to a hungry child who you have never met before in the
street that is considered generosity. Generosity is thought to be doing good
that you don’t have to do. It is doing good that isn’t your duty to do.
The danger with duty is how it expects that the person who carries out their
duties shouldn’t be as highly thought of as the person who practices generosity.
With duty, you act without expecting thanks or deserving it.
The law can force you to carry out your duties as it sees fit. Once something
becomes a duty, attempts can be made to force one to carry it out. To accept
something as your duty is to accept that evil should befall you if you do not
carry it out.
Duty is what binds you to live out its commands and threats are made if you
don't cooperate. What does binding mean?
Does it just mean something you should do? Believers in duty say you don’t have
a duty to give money to the beggar on the street. But they still add that it is
something that you should do. Many people see it as a duty to help the beggar
and others don’t.
Duty must mean something you should be compelled to do and you should suffer if
you don’t. It is about force.
To be good people and to be well-balanced people and to reach the zenith of
human potential we must reject the concept of duty. It matters not what people
consider to be their duty or not their duty. What is of concern is that they do
the good things required by duty but not as duty.
The duty belief stops you seeing how good you are. Jesus said that when you do
all the good you can you must not appreciate yourself but say you only did your
duty and were good for nothing. "When ye have done all those things which are
commanded you, say We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our
duty to do." The proper attitude is that what is called duty is an act of
generosity. If I pay my bills, it is an act of kindness. If I walk by the
stranger in the street I have kindly walked by that person and not hurt them.
Duty stops you seeing how good other people are. Deny the existence of duty and
advocate generosity instead.
The inventing of duties suggests that people are bad and need to be controlled
and commanded. That is not a healthy message to be giving out.
Duty implies that what it requires must be done by you whether you realise that
it is your duty or not. You must experience retribution if you fail in your
duty. Duties are supposedly based on rights meaning you can be punished for not
knowing your duty unless there is something wrong with you that prevents you
understanding.
Hypothetically, if you murder out of a sense of duty then
is that less bad than murdering out of spite? Hypothetically yes.
Religion says it is no. Is the belief that murder, even from a sense of
duty, is still immoral correct? Some say it depends. It could be morally neutral
for your attempt to do the right thing balances with the badness of murder.
Duty falls apart when you bring in thought experiments such as the hypothetical.
The hypothetical is not about what you do do but what you would do so it still
shows the kind of person you are.
Duty implies you must not be thanked for doing your duty. When something is your
duty, you are not entitled to a reward for it. Duty gives doing right a bad
name. Duty deprives the person who wants to bestow gratitude on you. If they
give you gratitude, duty calls it a lie.
The notion that there is a God seeks to impose more duties on us as if we do not
have enough! Belief in God demeans us.
Suppose God made us out of pure love. We owe him pure love back - it is our duty
to love him ultimately and wholly and completely. This means that when he wants
us to be generous to him, we cannot be. There is no room for generosity to God.
And if he wants us to love others and serve them, we must do it for him not them
meaning all that is duty too. It is curious how religion insists that if there
is no God there nobody to thank. If it is our duty to thank, then we cannot
thank. Real thanks is reflecting the generosity of others back to them as much
as you can. God religion is the enemy of thanks and generosity. When thanks
comes from a sense of duty it is not thanks. Thanks given under a threat is not
thanks. You cannot enjoy giving it much so it is not thanks.
Religion says we have a duty of obedience to God to become good people. Duty is
based on the idea of owing. If I owe you money and you have no punishment for
me, not even punishment for me in the form of disapproval, if I refuse to pay,
then it follows I do not owe it to you at all anymore. If you say I do, you have
no right to be taken seriously. By not making it a rule that you get paid, you
are effectively saying you are not owed the money anymore. A rule with no price
demanded of those who break it, is not a rule. Christians claim that they can
sin and as long as they confess and get forgiven promptly they will be fine.
This is really admitting that they do not have a duty to do good but only a duty
to get forgiveness for their sins. That is a travesty of right and wrong. It is a
mockery of those who suffer.
Duty even if necessary at times is not a nice idea. It means that you have no
right to enjoy praying or doing anything for God because he doesn't need you and
you owe it to him. If you enjoy it then well and good but you have no right to
try to enjoy it. Just let yourself enjoy. And how could you enjoy it when duty
is not about how you feel? If there is a divine force that is not bound to care
how you feel how could you be really happy?
Duty is nonsense. It is a necessary evil at best. Therefore it is nothing to be
celebrated. But we have found it is not even a necessary evil.