Objective and Subjective Duties
Prof. Rahe's post yesterday arguing that duties toward the nation trump duties toward family (in which he directly addressed an earlier comment of mine) calls for a more complete response than can be given in the comments section.
Let me begin with an analogy. Every Catholic has duties toward the Church: to accept her teaching authority, obey her moral and positive laws, promote her welfare, defend her from attack, support her with time and money according to his talents and ability, die for her if necessary. Some men become priests, and in so doing take on themselves extra duties—spousal duties. They are (at least in a sense) no longer their own; everything they are and have belongs to the Church, forever.
The Church needs priests to fulfill her mission in the world. It follows that some men have a duty to become priests. But it does not follow that any given Catholic man has a duty to become a priest, much less that those of us standing on the outside of his discernment have a right to claim he has that duty, no matter how well-suited we may think he is to the task. Why? Because the call to priesthood is an inward call, addressed by God to a man's personal subjectivity.
Some men who are so called answer with immense interior joy--like a bridegroom marrying the woman of his dreams. Others say yes with sorrow and fear and doubt and dread, like Washington answering the call to the Presidency. It's not what they would have chosen for themselves; they may not feel at all up to it, and yet, they feel called to it and they trust God to give them the grace they need to live it faithfully.
Likewise, some men may take up the call to public service gladly and readily and with a lot of personal satisfaction. (I'm speaking of the kind of man who generally lives under a sense of duty, not the kind of man who seeks public office for the sake of its rewards in money and power.) Others do it with reluctance and misgiving and awareness of the sacrifices involved for them and their family, but nevertheless with a feeling of ought.
Either way, they alone are in a position to judge whether they can and should seek office, because they alone are in a position to duly weigh the myriad factors involved.
Where duties are objective, we are justified in admonishing one another. We can blame a man who commits adultery or who dodges the draft, or a woman who lets her children go hungry while she feeds her appetite for fun, or a citizen who shirks jury duty or fails to vote.
But some duties are subjective. They are addressed to the inner man; they are individual, and not open to public scrutiny and critique.
A married man has duties toward his wife and children of both the objective (fidelity, provision, protection) and subjective (concern for their particular, individual welfare) kinds. (For an example of a subjective duty: a man seeing that his wife is exhausted ought to cancel his golfing trip, or cut back on the hours he spends at the office, or hire a housekeeper to help her.) Similarly, a man has duties toward his nation that are both objective (pay taxes, obey the law, register for the draft, go to war when called) and subjective (volunteer work, military service, elective office, etc.)
How a given person sorts and weighs all these possibilities in the circumstances in which he finds himself (both personal and historical), taking into account his own "interior configuration"--his strengths and weaknesses, his hopes and aspirations, etc., and shakes them down to concrete judgments and decisions, is complex and inscrutable. It's the purview of what Newman calls the illative sense. (Cf. chapter 9 of A Grammar of Assent.)
...how does the mind fulfil its function of supreme direction and control, in matters of duty, social intercourse, and taste? In all of these separate actions of the intellect, the individual is supreme, and responsible to himself, nay, under circumstances, may be justified in opposing himself to the judgment of the whole world...
[Emphasis added]
We may think that a particular man--Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie--is perfectly suited to the present need. We may bring all our rhetorical skill and persuasive powers to bear to urge him to see as we do. But in the end, he must decide. Only he can decide. And if he decides—citing his own inner sense of responsibility—against what we hope, we have no right to accuse him of dereliction of duty.
We are up against the heart of the mystery of personal existence. And, by extension, inter-personal (or political) existence. (Excuse me for waxing philosophical. I can't help myself.)
This is from Karol Wojtyla (the future John Paul II) in his great book on sexual ethics, Love and Responsibility. [Emphasis added again.]
The incommunicable, the inalienable, in a person is intrinsic to that person’s inner self, to the power of self determination, free will. No one else can want for me. No one can substitute his act of will for mine. It does sometimes happen that someone very much wants me to want what he wants. This is the moment when the impassable frontier between him and me, which is drawn by free will, becomes most obvious. I may not want that which he wants me to want—and in this precisely I am incommunicabilis. I am, and I must be, independent in my actions. All human relationships are posited on this fact. All true conceptions about education and culture begin from and return to this point.
I am all in favor of cultivating in the body politic a much greater sense of civic duty. But one of the prime duties we have toward one another is surely the duty to refrain from interfering in deeply and essentially personal matters, even when those matters have grave public consequences.
- Comment (82)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
George Washington's duty to be the first President was an objective need. The Republic would have almost certainly failed without him in that roll. To not serve would have been shirking his duty.
I do not think that duty can only be subjective, You say above:
But in the end, he must decide. Only he can decide. And if he decides—citing his own inner sense of responsibility—against what we hope, we have no right to accuse him of dereliction of duty.
You are wrong here. Had Washington not served, then his fellow Founding Fathers, and History itself would have condemned him for his dereliction of duty.
To me, your argument is very a postmodern one centered around the individual wants in his heart. It is a "listen to your feelings" argument (as I understand it). Duty is not about feelings, it is about what is right.
If someone does not live up to their duty, I might not be able to make them comply, but I have my own duty to call them on it, no matter how personal it is.
The Greeks and Romans understood this far better than modern Americans.
Sep '11
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Katievs,
Not sure where I come down here, but this is beautifully done. Reminds me of a question returned to again and again in V. Havel's work: is there a duty to dissent--to live in truth--in the face of a Communist regime? Can one reproach others for NOT choosing to do so? I will post something on this very question tomorrow. Kudos to you for presenting this alternative way of thinking about this problem.
May '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
No, not what he wants, but he believes is right.
If it's a question of objective duty, then there's no call for subjective judgment. If I'm married to Bob I don't need to discern whether or not I should sleep with Joe.
But in prudential matters, which are essentially addressed to our subjectivity, there is no escaping personal judgment. No one else can tell me what my duty is, only (perhaps), what they think it is. In the end, it's up to me to judge.
The judgment that Washington was called to the Presidency is one we can only make in hindsight and by reading his own thoughts on the matter. At the moment the decision had to be made, he was alone with his own "best lights", which--thankfully--led him to comply with his friends' urging.
Edited on Oct 10, 2011 at 9:22amMay '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Thank you for the kind words. They are much appreciated.
As for the question you raise, I think the answer is yes. Every person has a moral duty to live in truth, always. But our culpability varies dramatically with circumstances. Who can blame those who fail under tyrannical regimes? I'm sure God will be merciful with them. Much more than those of us who fail to live in truth where there is no oppression.
Aug '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
I agree with your argument, Katievs, and feel that those who compare our current situation to the one Washington faced at the birth of our nation are incorrect.
Washington was probably the only man who could've successfully served as our first president. His response to duty is legendary. But to imply that only Paul Ryan or Mitch Daniels can save our nation now is just silly.
I admire Dr Rahe - one of the many reasons being that he seems to be one of the few contributors who haven't abandoned Ricochet - but feel he has gone off the rails on this one.
Oct '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Bryan G. Stephens: George Washington's duty to be the first President was an objective need. The Republic would have almost certainly failed without him in that roll. To not serve would have been shirking his duty.
I do not think that duty can only be subjective, You say above:
But in the end, he must decide. Only he can decide. And if he decides—citing his own inner sense of responsibility—against what we hope, we have no right to accuse him of dereliction of duty.
You are wrong here. Had Washington not served, then his fellow Founding Fathers, and History itself would have condemned him for his dereliction of duty.
· Oct 10 at 9:04am
Your argument is forcefully made by Gilbert and Sullivan in The Pirates of Penzance.
Does "duty" actually trump the leading of God in one's life?
May '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Frozen Chosen: I agree with your argument, Katievs, and feel that those who compare our current situation to the one Washington faced at the birth of our nation are incorrect.
Washington was probably the only man who could've successfully served as our first president. His response to duty is legendary. But to imply that only Paul Ryan or Mitch Daniels can save our nation now is just silly.
I admire Dr Rahe - one of the many reasons being that he seems to be one of the few contributors who haven't abandoned Ricochet - but feel he has gone off the rails on this one. · Oct 10 at 9:29am
Washington is being used and an example, at least by me, not as a comparison. Adams is a more apt comparison for me.
However, you might not think things are that dire. I think the Republic is facing an hour almost as dark as when half the nation split away. The future will be hard. I want to survive it.
May '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
raycon
Does "duty" actually trump the leading of God in one's life? · Oct 10 at 9:35am
Well, we do have to be soberly aware of the possibly of self-deception about "God's leading", especially when it comes to objective duties. I've known cases of people who abandoned their plain (objective) duty on the dubious grounds that God was telling them to do something else.
The key is to distinguish between the objective moral law and prudential matters.
Oct '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Oct '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
raycon
katievs
raycon
Does "duty" actually trump the leading of God in one's life? · Oct 10 at 9:35am
Well, we do have to be soberly aware of the possibly of self-deception about "God's leading", especially when it comes to objective duties. I've known cases of people who abandoned their plain (objective) duty on the dubious grounds that God was telling them to do something else.
The key is to distinguish between the objective moral law and prudential matters. · Oct 10 at 10:06am
We are not in disagreement. Perhaps I used the word duty in the informal sense, rather than the legal sense. Both Catholic and Protestant Christians recognize the mandate from God to obey civil authority, that is to do ones duty under that authority. We are also under God's mandate to do our moral duty to God (through the church?) and the moral imperatives that we find in Scripture.
However, outside of that, we are not bound by the duties which society defines if there is a conflict in our understanding of God's personal leading in our lives. There, duty is a very personal thing. · Oct 10 at 10:24am
Mar '11
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
I was listening to Mr Ryan's chat with Peter, and it struck me that he is doing this for his kids. For whatever reason, he is not hearing the inner voice to run for President. It's fine - he is maybe in the best place to serve the country where he is.
Mr Cain is doing it for his grand kids, and hears the inner voice to run for President.
The other candidates, more seasoned in politics, as Prof Rahe desires, see an opportunity to advance their careers, or advance their ideology, and are going for it -- as did Mr Obama.
So I agree that Prof Rahe has gone off the rails on this.
Feb '11
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Hmm. Dr. Rahe began with the Aristotelian claim that the state precedes the family. This is the classical approach to politics. Modernity teaches that the state exists for the individual. The modern approach protects our freedoms but risks sacrificing patriotism and spiritedness. Katievs posits the illative sense as a kind of knowing that has real bearing on prudential judgment. This new consideration seems capable of splitting the difference between classical and modern politics.
The illative sense is really founded on the individual's personal relationship with the Almighty. The illative sense, the ancient Greeks never claimed to possess. If there is a higher, or at least occasionally more correct, form of knowing, then the objective claim of duty over the judgment of the individual (the subjective individual) is shattered as a rule. It is a guide to judgment, but it is no longer a rule.
Duty calls, but it does not always dictate. It seems that Christianity, by its subjective intimateness, threatens the classical idea, but it does not thereby embrace modern individualism, or for that matter, conservative tribalism.
Edited on Oct 10, 2011 at 11:03amDec '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
I can see serving in a particular role as an objective duty only if the role is suited to no other. With our slate of presidential candidates we run the gambit from worst to best, but there is none in the nation for whom the position is singularly suited. In hindsight, yes, we can say that the position was singularly suited to Washington. Looking forward, however, no matter how ideal a specific individual appears to us, a sound case cannot be made that such a person is the only one capable of fulfilling the role. A very compelling case can be made that Ryan or Daniels should step up to the plate, but I fail to see that either must. Only by knowing exactly the consequences of a certain man running or not can we elevate the duty from subjective to objective.
Jan '11
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
If Rahe's premise is wrong, then what can be said about the many thousands of military that elect to go in harm's way for their country's sake. Isn't that putting country above family? A nation is a sociological collective, and we each have a role to play in it - an individual obligation to contribute to the common good. Of course, that notion has become somewhat inverted in recent decades. Irretrievably, I think.
Edited on Oct 10, 2011 at 11:09amDec '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
The question becomes, I think, who assigns the roles?
Jun '11
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
That Paul Rahe's post has prompted such analysis is one of the reasons why Ricochet is a wonderful place.
That the post prompted such analysis and reaction also shows how far away we have moved from basic notions of civic virtue, duty and responsibility. As rational administration has grown and power has been stripped away to be relocated inside the Beltway, as prosperity swept across America in unimagined waves, we became more residents of the Republic than citizens of the same, more islands than communities.
It is, of course, Congressman Ryan's and Governor's Daniels decision ultimately to run or not to run. Perhaps they don't think we are in crisis. Perhaps they don't think we live in critical times.
It's a shame. Even if they ran and did not win, the debate and dialogue would be greatly enriched.
Nov '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Katievs, a deep and very thoughtful post, but, my initial comment would be that accusing Ryan of "a dereliction of duty" is simply not an act of "interfering in deeply and essentially personal matters." As a practical, everyday matter, politics is about speech/persuasion (but at a deeper level, it is emphatically not about persuasion, but shaping the will -- viz., Leo Strauss's penetrating statement on the omnipotence of speech).
Rahe is simply employing hortatory speech to that end.
The country is going to hell. When I read that Paul Ryan did not want to find himself crying into his pillow because he has not seen his family in two weeks, I could only think (much as I otherwise take a back-seat to NO ONE in my admiration for Paul Ryan) of a much needed General Patton slapping a cowardly soldier. Sorry to sound harsh, but, as Thucydides said, politics is a harsh teacher...
I think, ultimately, with all due respect (and I hope you know that you're one of my very favorite contributors here), you're too wrapped-up in "subjectivity."
Edited on Oct 10, 2011 at 12:28pmJun '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
The Bridges of Madison County among others.
Nov '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
So a man who can swim stands by and watches some people drown. When asked why he didn't jump in to try to save them, he says, "It didn't feel right to me. Besides, I had a duty to my family not to put myself at risk." That's the choice you're asking us to respect. And, in a certain way, those drowning people include his family members.
Sep '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
David Williamson:
So I agree that Prof Rahe has gone off the rails on this. · Oct 10 at 11:02am
Prof. Rahe may have been playing the role of professor and provoking thought and discussion. Something he does well.