There Are No Subjective Duties
In her recent post – Objective and Subjective Duties – Katievs draws a distinction where there is, I believe, no difference. Here is what she says:
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.)
Later, in the comments, when pressed, she rephrases the distinction in the following way:
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.
There is a difference between the duties Katievs calls “objective” and those she calls “subjective,” but the difference does not turn on whether they are objective or subjective. It is much simpler. What she calls “objective duties” are no-brainers and require no reflection. Shall I commit adultery? Shall I pay my taxes? The answer is obvious. What she calls “subjective duties” have answers that are not immediately obvious. They require rumination; they require a weighing of options; they require judgment.
But, in the end, that judgment is not subjective. It is objective. It is either right or wrong, and others often can see more clearly than the subject who is weighing the options. That is why, when we contemplate marriage with a particular individual, we take that individual to meet our parents and friends. We may be caught up in a great passion, and we may be blind. They aren’t. Our judgments in such matters are precisely what Katievs says that they are not: “open to scrutiny and critique.” And we all know this because we have all, at one time or another, ignored good advice, blundered, and regretted our folly.
It is simply wrong to say that “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.”
These questions are, indeed, addressed to the individual person, and, in the end, that person must decide for himself. But it is dead wrong to say that “the individual person” to whom the question is addressed “alone can determine the answer, because he or she alone has the ability to weigh all the relevant factors.”
No decision that any human being makes when faced with a difficult question is closed “to scrutiny and critique.” There are subjective preferences (Beaujolais or Merlot? White chocolate or dark chocolate? Blond or brunette?), and they are not open to scrutiny or critique. But duties? There are no subjective duties. There is right, and there is wrong. Sometimes it is hard to discern which is which – and that is why, in ordinary life, we test our instincts by submitting the conclusion to which we are tending to the scrutiny and critique of others.
I may have been right and I may have been wrong to charge Governor Daniels and Congressman Ryan with a dereliction of duty. But to deny that their decisions with regard to their duties in the circumstances should be open to scrutiny and critique is absurd. Unless I misremember, Katievs some months back came down on my side of this question. In a comment on some post, if I remember correctly, she expressed approval of Governor Daniels’ decision to put his family first. She judged what she asserts here no one has a right to judge. I think that it was perfectly proper for her to do so (even if I disagree with the judgment she reached).
- Comment (37)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
It seems to me duties are inter-subjective, i.e. between two or more subjects. Would Robinson Crusoe alone on a deserted island have any duties?
Dec '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
Yes, duties to oneself. It is a duty to survive. It is duty to try to establish human just society where there is none. Noah is said to have observed the first duty but not the second. Abraham is said to have observed both duties.
Feb '11
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
To be the President of America means to lead the whole world. Deciding to run for this position absolutely should not be decided by purely objective human reason. Even Aeneas, the man on a mission, listened intently to the advice of gods. If all the gods had been against him, would Aeneas have pressed on? This is a matter of such intense personal discernment (marriage, in the last analysis, is also such a matter) that it is simply out of place to consign moral blame. In Katievs' words, "they are addressed to the inner man." The inward call is more important than which candidate appears more the statesman. If a duty depends on knowledge that no one but the one called can possibly have then the duty is, for purposes of human observation, a subjective duty.
Edited on Oct 10, 2011 at 10:08pmSep '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
The problem is with your, “dereliction of duty” statement. First you have the problem that only a qualified person could be derelict and that the type of person who would be derelict would not, I think, be deemed qualified. No one is questioning, as far as I can see, whether one can muse about the soundness and/ or consequences of their decision. Face it you went too far.
May '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
Well, Professor, you are certainly pressing me to refine and clarify my thinking and language.
I'll try again. What I'm calling subjective duties (though I realize it's an imperfect term) are duties that only the subject is capable of identifying as a duty, because they must be experienced inwardly as a duty in order to actually be a duty. On the external, objective plane they are not duties, but prudential judgments.
When a person we know to be serious, thoughtful and conscientious weighs a grave prudential matter carefully, taking account of the myriad circumstances of his life: his strengths and weaknesses, his alternatives, his hopes, his possibilities, his family and the effects on them, the moment in history, the other candidates, the advice of friends, and so on, and then emerges from the effort saying, firmly and clearly, "It's not my time to run," then it seems to me the height of presumption and impertinence (sorry!) for someone else, who cannot possibly weigh all those things duly, because he is not that person, to publicly charge him with dereliction of duty.
Edited on Oct 11, 2011 at 7:24amMay '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
I don't remember exactly what I said back then, but there's a difference between admiring a person for putting his family above his personal ambition and pretending to know where his duty lies in such a case.
I'm sure I never said Gov. Daniel's had a duty to decline to run, because I don't believe that he did, objectively. If his own conscience was urging, "You must not run," then he did well not to run. He was following his own sense of personal duty.
Since I can't see into his conscience, I can't be sure of that of course. Neither can you.
Dec '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
Dr. Rahe went too far for you, Jim. Not for me.
Ryan took up the mantle and became the de facto leader of the Republican party. He obviously cares about the future of the country for which he devised a complicated plan to see it prosper. He's the only person who can articulate that plan competently. And then? And then he shed the mantle without even nodding in the direction of a successor. "Dereliction of duty" works for me.
And I love Paul Ryan! I love him as a fellow conservative and the obviously decent man he is. And, yes, I love him because he shares my religion. But as a Catholic, he should understand that we are about self-sacrifice in emulation of Christ. He failed to pick up his cross. I won't hold it against him, but I couldn't help noticing.
May '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
Paul A. Rahe: These questions are, indeed, addressed to the individual person, and, in the end, that person must decide for himself. But it is dead wrong to say that “the individual person” to whom the question is addressed “alone can determine the answer, because he or she alone has the ability to weigh all the relevant factors.”
No decision that any human being makes when faced with a difficult question is closed “to scrutiny and critique.”
Of course they can be critiqued to a point. Just not ultimately.
If a grown woman says to her parents, "I realize that Bob comes from a 'better family' and has better future prospects than Joe, but Joe is the man for me, I'm sure of it", what can they do but hope they raised her to be a good judge of character? They may have doubts, but they lack the necessary information to know whether she's made a good choice. They are not her.
May '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
Western Chauvinist:
"Dereliction of duty" works for me.
WC, it's not about what works for us, it's about what's true and just.
You have no right to accuse a man you don't know personally of being derelict in duty and rejecting the cross because he judges the situation of his own life and concerns differently than you do.
I can hardly believe I'm reading what I'm reading.
Jun '11
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
If these were average times, the "dereliction of duty" might be out of place but these are not such average times.
We are at or near a turning point. Lines are being drawn. America is once again asking basic questions about the nature of government. How we answer those questions will have wide consequences not just here but around the world.
Any American who does not speak up to the best of her or his ability can be considered to be derelict in their duties.
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
Measure for Measure: To be the President of America means to lead the whole world. Deciding to run for this position absolutely should not be decided by purely objective human reason. Even Aeneas, the man on a mission, listened intently to the advice of gods. If all the gods had been against him, would Aeneas have pressed on? This is a matter of such intense personal discernment (marriage, in the last analysis, is also such a matter) that it is simply out of place to consign moral blame. In Katievs' words, "they are addressed to the inner man." The inward call is more important than which candidate appears more the statesman. If a duty depends on knowledge that no one but the one called can possibly have then the duty is, for purposes of human observation, a subjective duty. · Oct 10 at 10:08pm
Edited on Oct 10 at 10:08 pm
Aeneas did not listen to "the inward call." He listened to the gods, and their admonition (not advice) was the circumstance that he took into account when reasoning about what to do. Neither Governor Daniels nor Congressman Ryan attributed his decision to divine guidance or "the inward call."
May '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
Each one of us may be called to do what we can. What that means for each individual is a matter for prudential judgment.
Are you living in a home bigger than you absolutely need? Are you spending your money on anything beyond what is strictly necessary to keep you alive and out of jail? Are you giving every minute you have at your disposal doing something other than fighting to defeat Obama?
Yes? What is your justification, then? Aren't you aware that these are no ordinary times?
By your own definition, could I not say that you, Michael Kelley, are being derelict in your duties to your nation?
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
katievs:
When a person we know to be serious, thoughtful and conscientious weighs a grave prudential matter carefully, taking account of the myriad circumstances of his life: his strengths and weaknesses, his alternatives, his hopes, his possibilities, his family and the effects on them, the moment in history, the other candidates, the advice of friends, and so on, and then emerges from the effort saying, firmly and clearly, "It's not my time to run," then it seems to me the height of presumption and impertinence (sorry!) for someone else, who cannot possibly weigh all those things duly, because he is not that person, to publicly charge him with dereliction of duty. · Oct 11 at 5:20am
Edited on Oct 11 at 07:24 am
I do not think it presumptuous or impertinent in the slightest, when the country is in dire straits and only a handful of men have the standing and the expert knowledge required for coming to grips with the crisis, that they have a duty to take the bull by the horns. I think it common sense.
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
katievs: Well, Professor, you are certainly pressing me to refine and clarify my thinking and language.
I'll try again. What I'm calling subjective duties (though I realize it's an imperfect term) are duties that only the subject is capable of identifying as a duty, because they must be experienced inwardly as a duty in order to actually be a duty. On the external, objective plane they are not duties, but prudential judgments. · Oct 11 at 5:20am
Edited on Oct 11 at 07:24 am
.It makes no sense to say that for "a duty . . . to actually be a duty" it must be "experienced inwardly." If that were true, we would never consult anyone else as to what constitutes our duty in given circumstances. What constitutes a man's duty is a matter for reason to sort out in light of those circumstances. What you speak of as inward experience has nothing to do with it. Right and wrong are not subjective. What is right is objectively right, and what is wrong is objectively wrong.
Jun '11
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
katievs
Each one of us may be called to do what we can. What that means for each individual is a matter for prudential judgment.
Are you living in a home bigger than you absolutely need? Are you spending your money on anything beyond what is strictly necessary to keep you alive and out of jail? Are you giving every minute you have at your disposal doing something other than fighting to defeat Obama?
Yes? What is your justification, then? Aren't you aware that these are no ordinary times?
By your own definition, could I not say that you, Michael Kelley, are being derelict in your duties to your nation? · Oct 11 at 7:34am
You lost me on the big house and spending thing but in answer to your final question, if I do not do everything that I can to defeat a Progressive agenda which runs contrary to everything that I believe about life in this Republic, then yes.
I am absolutely and shamefully derelict.
May '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
Paul A. Rahe
...when the country is in dire straits and only a handful of men have the standing and the expert knowledge required for coming to grips with the crisis, that they have a duty to take the bull by the horns....
Suppose those men don't see it as you do? Suppose they are neither as convinced that so much depends on who is the next Republican President nor as confident that they have what it takes to get elected and do the job?
People judge these things differently, God knows.
And we know that they know a lot we don't know, including not just their personal situation, but all kinds of stuff that only Washington insiders know.
For instance, they may have good reasons for believing that a Romney Presidency would not be as bad as you think it will be.
Look how much practical power Obama handed to Pelosi and Reid.
Maybe Ryan foresees that under a President Romney, Republican leadership in the House and Senate is going to be a lot more important than it has been lately...
Maybe Daniels foresees that if his family life fell apart, so would his ability to lead...
Edited on Oct 11, 2011 at 8:16amDec '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
I will have to go on record as a Ricochet apostate, but I don't think Paul Ryan is everything we make him out to be. If he was Washington reincarnate, if he was Lincoln at Gettysburg relived, if he was Reagan again at the Brandenburg Gate, then he would be in dereliciton of his duties to not be the man of the moment and rise to the occassion and circumstances as the only man on earth who could. I just don't see in him history pre-written. The occasion is grave and the circumstances severe, and we may actually need a savior, but I simply do not project onto Paul Ryan such greatness. If he sees the ship of state heading onto the rocks and feels his best effect is to call commands rather than physically turn the wheel, then he is not the man for the moment. There may be no such man. God help us.
May '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
michael kelley
You lost me on the big house and spending thing but in answer to your final question, if I do not do everything that I can to defeat a Progressive agenda which runs contrary to everything that I believe about life in this Republic, then yes.
I am absolutely and shamefully derelict. · Oct 11 at 7:49am
If your house is bigger than you need, you could sell it and give the money you save to good conservative candidates in tight races. Likewise with the rest of your disposal time and money.
If you don't, you can't really be said to be doing everything you can, can you?
May '10
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
Paul A. Rahe
Aeneas did not listen to "the inward call." He listened to the gods, and their admonition (not advice) was the circumstance that he took into account when reasoning about what to do. Neither Governor Daniels nor Congressman Ryan attributed his decision to divine guidance or "the inward call." · Oct 11 at 7:30am
The admonition of the gods is exactly an inner call.
Nor does a person have to publicly attribute his decision to an inward sense of duty in order to have actually been guided by it. That both Ryan and Daniels are serious and religious men leads me to expect that they were so guided.
Chris Christie said such things as "I know in in my heart" and "it never felt right", plainly indicating that he, too, searched his conscience carefully before concluding that right—for him—lay elsewhere than in a Presidential run.
Jan '11
Re: There Are No Subjective Duties
If we argue that Paul Ryan, for instance, has a duty ... because no one else can do it ... that does veer into subjective assessments about whether he can do it, and whether others can't.
But now, what if you're not so certain? What if the other candidates ... well ... look like they might be solid, but you can't be sure? You find yourself weighing the uncertainty of their skill against the uncertainty of what damage it will cause your family. It becomes highly subjective.