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
True and fair point. I was a bit garbled there. Still, I think my general point holds.
And I think you're excessively objectivistic. Typical of anti-moderns. You're so acutely conscious of the all the terrible errors and losses of our age that you miss its great achievements.
In any case, let me be clear: I am an objectivist in the sense of believing in the existence of objective (even absolute!) truth. I hate and despise relativism.
May '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Lucy, that's an absurd inference.
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
liberal jim
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. · Oct 10 at 12:10pm
He did intend to provoke, but that does not mean that he did not go off the rails.
May '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
liberal jim
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. · Oct 10 at 12:10pm
Do you think he doesn't realize that to publicly charge good and conscientious men with dereliction of duty is a serious matter? I find that hard to believe. But I don't know him personally, so perhaps you're right.
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
katievs
Lucy, that's an absurd inference. · Oct 10 at 3:08pm
Katie, it seems to me to be right on the mark. All duties are objective.
May '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Paul A. Rahe
I would say that circumstances do -- and that is why I charge Governor Daniels and Congressman Ryan with a dereliction of duty. Let me add that I think that the distinction that Katievs draws between objective and subjective duty is a distinction without a difference. What counts as one's duty is always objective -- though it may on occasion be hard to discern and require rumination. The notion that it is illegitimate for outsiders to judge whether one has failed to do one's duty is absurd. They may err, but then the man contemplating his own duty may err himself. · Oct 10 at 3:06pm
This sums it up better than I can.
May '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
katievs
Lucy, that's an absurd inference. · Oct 10 at 3:08pm
How is it absurd? How is it different than Ryan? You advocate that family trumps duty to others. Her example is just that. Don't call it absurd: Tell us why it is wrong.
May '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Bryan G. Stephens
katievs
Lucy, that's an absurd inference. · Oct 10 at 3:08pm
How is it absurd? How is it different than Ryan? You advocate that family trumps duty to others. Her example is just that. Don't call it absurd: Tell us why it is wrong. ·
Bryan, once again, I do not advocate that family trumps duty to others. I have neither said nor implied any such thing. If John Adams was convinced that he should be President, then he was right to do it regardless of the cost to his family.
But I will try again to explain. For the moment I will just say again that I am truly stunned that this isn't obvious to all.
Aug '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
The central problem with this whole issue is Dr Rahe is attributing characteristics to Ryan and Daniels that they themselves may not feel they possess!
Perhaps Ryan didn't think he had the either the campaign skills to get elected or the executive skills to run things if he were elected. Perhaps Daniels didn't feel he would have the strength to run this course without the support of his wife.
If these guys had come out and said, "oh yeah, I could win this thing easy and run this country better than it's ever been run but I don't really want to be away from the wife and kids that much" then you might have a case.
Shy of that you are just superimposing your views of someone else over their own view of themself, which isn't really fair...
Edited on October 11, 2011 at 12:52amMay '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Bryan G. Stephens
How is it absurd? ...Tell us why it is wrong.
Okay, here's why:
1) The duty to save another person in imminent danger of death (assuming we have the ability to save him) is an objective duty, not a subjective one.
2) That there is such a thing as subjective duties (such as a call to the priesthood or a call give financial help to a particular charity) in no way means that whatever I say about my motives is sufficient for proving my actions were right and just.
There are duties that are nothing other than strict adherence to law, moral or civic, e.g., Do not commit adultery, pay your taxes. No "special knowledge" of the person involved is necessary for condemning the failure to abide by these laws.
But questions like How shall I spend my life? How shall I serve my country? Whom should I marry? Should we adopt a child? Should I homeschool my children? Should I run for President? Are addressed to the individual person, who alone can determine the answer, because he or she alone has the ability to weigh all the relevant factors.
Edited on October 11, 2011 at 1:13amMay '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Paul Ryan--chairman of the Congressional Budget Committee and author of the stunningly bold Roadmap to Prosperity--is accused (by implication) of doing nothing to help our nation because he declines to run for President in 2012?!
Suppose he judges the whole situation differently from the way you do? Suppose he thinks he can do more good for the country by remaining where he is? Suppose he has reasons (which we may not know about) for thinking he would lose the election? Suppose he calculates that if he's where he is, then even a weak Republican President could accomplish a lot more than we expect with the current House leadership coupled with a new Republican majority in the Senate? Suppose he's had conversations with Romney that give him a lot of confidence?
Suppose that his wife, on whose love and wisdom he depends, tells him that she fears it would badly mess up their childrens' lives if he were to be President now?
Suppose he takes the question to close friends and to prayer, and comes up with the interior conviction that he ought not to run?
Edited on October 11, 2011 at 1:29amNov '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Frankly, I did not subscribe to Ricochet to read distilled versions of Papal theology every day of the week and yet, this is what I've been paying to read for almost a year. It's time to exercise my rights in a free market and cancel my subscription. (BSA, please take note).
Just for the record, I do not believe in the separation of church from state, but these comments have become nothing but sanctimonious distractions from the crises at hand. My recommendation to the author: get a j-o-b, pay some taxes, and pay due diligence to the realities of the American economy and the global financial markets.
.
Nov '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
katievs
Bryan G. Stephens
How is it absurd? ...Tell us why it is wrong.
But questions like How shall I spend my life? How shall I serve my country? Whom should I marry? Should we adopt a child? Should I homeschool my children? Should I run for President? Are addressed to the individual person, who alone can determine the answer, because he or she alone has the ability to weigh all the relevant factors.
Sorry, but where is it written that "thou shalt jump into the water to save drowning people"? That is no more a commandment than "thou shalt run for President." Either may be a moral inference that one may draw from general principles about what is right and good.
And, frankly, if you think about things like the number of people who may die as a result of a botched Middle East policy, or the people starving in Africa because of our loony ethanol policy, the latter choice.seems to me--for a unique individual who is capable of running and winning and leading the country out of our current crisis--to be a far more effective way of saving lives.
Nov '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Elizabeth Dunn: Frankly, I did not subscribe to Ricochet to read distilled versions of Papal theology every day of the week and yet, this is what I've been paying to read for almost a year. It's time to exercise my rights in a free market and cancel my subscription. (BSA, please take note).
Just for the record, I do not believe in the separation of church from state, but these comments have become nothing but sanctimonious distractions from the crises at hand. My recommendation to the author: get a j-o-b, pay some taxes, and pay due diligence to the realities of the American economy and the global financial markets.
Sorry you feel that way. I'm not Catholic, but I greatly appreciate all that the Catholics have to offer in the area of moral insight.
Nov '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Lucy Pevensie
Sorry you feel that way. I'm not Catholic, but I greatly appreciate all that the Catholics have to offer in the area of moral insight.
I greatly appreciate the moral clarity of the free market, yet I read little beyond tired, class warfare whining on this site. Uninspiring to say the least.
Jul '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Lucy Pevensie: Sorry, but where is it written that "thou shalt jump into the water to save drowning people"? That is no more a commandment than "thou shalt run for President." Either may be a moral inference that one may draw from general principles about what is right and good.
And, frankly, if you think about things like the number of people who may die as a result of a botched Middle East policy, or the people starving in Africa because of our loony ethanol policy, the latter choice.seems to me--for a unique individual who is capable of running and winning and leading the country out of our current crisis--to be a far more effective way of saving lives. · Oct 10 at 4:48pm
Come now, no one pitched Ryan or Daniels because of their respective foreign policy or energy chops.
They were put forward to "save us" from our own debt.
A better analogy would be: Does a man have a duty to drag his family onto the front stoop of a crackhouse because he can enter the basement and potentially talk his adult neighbors into ditching the pipe?
Edited on October 11, 2011 at 2:35amMay '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
I fail to see the difference that is being drawn between the subjective and objective duties, I guess. If something is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do.
I do not see where I have an objective duty to save someone who is drowning (which risks my life), if there is no objective duty to serve my nation in a time of need.
When it is time to step up in life, and you don't, you are not doing your duty.
What I don't understand is why it is so controversial to call people on it. I am calling it as I see it. Is that a moral failing on my part? If not, what is the problem with saying it? I truly do not understand what the problem is, other than we are saying something that is "not nice".
May '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Palaeologus
Come now, no one pitched Ryan or Daniels because of their respective foreign policy or energy chops.
They were put forward to "save us" from our own debt.
A better analogy would be: Does a man have a duty to drag his family onto the front stoop of a crackhouse because he can enter the basement and potentially talk his adult neighbors into ditching the pipe? · Oct 10 at 5:26pm
Edited on Oct 10 at 05:35 pm
I am not sure I agree that the trip to the White House is like standing in a crime ridden "hood". In fact, a First Family is far safer than the rank in file, and there are lots of perks to be had (see the First Lady's trips). While there are some hardships for the family, I have to say, it seems to me there are lots of goodies too. Much more so than Adams or Washington's day.
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Frozen Chosen: The central problem with this whole issue is Dr Rahe is attributing characteristics to Ryan and Daniels that they themselves may not feel they possess!
Perhaps Ryan didn't think he had the either the campaign skills to get elected or the executive skills to run things if he were elected. Perhaps Daniels didn't feel he would have the strength to run this course without the support of his wife.
If these guys had come out and said, "oh yeah, I could win this thing easy and run this country better than it's ever been run but I don't really want to be away from the wife and kids that much" then you might have a case.
Shy of that you are just superimposing your views of someone else over their own view of themself, which isn't really fair... · Oct 10 at 3:52pm
Edited on Oct 10 at 03:52 pm
Daniels spent an entire year laying the foundations for a campaign. He even wrote the requisite book (which was recently published). He was not sure that he would win the nomination. No sane person is. He intended to run.
Jul '10
Re: Objective and Subjective Duties
Bryan G. Stephens
Palaeologus
Come now, no one pitched Ryan or Daniels because of their respective foreign policy or energy chops.
They were put forward to "save us" from our own debt.
A better analogy would be: Does a man have a duty to drag his family onto the front stoop of a crackhouse because he can enter the basement and potentially talk his adult neighbors into ditching the pipe? · Oct 10 at 5:26pm
Edited on Oct 10 at 05:35 pm
I am not sure I agree that the trip to the White House is like standing in a crime ridden "hood". In fact, a First Family is far safer than the rank in file, and there are lots of perks to be had (see the First Lady's trips). While there are some hardships for the family, I have to say, it seems to me there are lots of goodies too. Much more so than Adams or Washington's day.
No, it's not exactly the same. But surely, if America can be said to be "drowning" then airing your family's dirty laundry in a presidential campaign is comparable to courting the catcalls on the stoop.