If one is prioritizing or making choices in his/her perceived duties, then by definition duty is situationally dependent is it not?

 

Exactly what I was trying to say. I wish I had said it this well.

 

Aw shucks, 't weren't nothin'.

 

The word "duty" is not a very comfortable one. It implies action, and we are not all of the same mind regarding Iraq. In one sense, if you agree with the Iraq war then your sense of duty might be to support it verbally, vote accordingly, send care packages to the troops, or even join the armed forces.

If you did not support the war, I suppose your duty would be action as well. To verbally dissent, to actively seek alternatives. I also think that one can not agree with the war and yet support the troops.

If there's a mouse outside trying to bell the cat and you think it's a dumb idea, please don't warn the cat!

 

That is one of reasons that I think the call for a pull out date from Iraq, is just down right naive.

Even though this thread is not really about Iraq. It is about people that feel a sense of duty to their community, country, etc.

 

I will do my best to avoid politics here and look at duty. (The article in question, I feel, does not avoid the politics.)

When you discuss the military it is very difficult to remove the situation from the duty, if you know what that situation is going in.

I think that duty takes many forms, firemen share a sense of duty that I find astounding, and police similarly. But you need to also look at the folks who go into disaster areas where disease is rampant. That is a call to duty. What about the inner city teacher who goes to a place where they could quite conceivably be in harm's way.

Jeff, I am not sure if this is what you were getting at, but duty is from the heart. The duty to serve in the military, the duty to go into a blazing building, the duty to donate blood, or to help someone who is much less fortunate.

That all being said, I do think that duty is situational. I know firemen that are pacifists and find the idea of war just plain wrong, but that does not has no bearing on them running into a burning building to save another human being. That is a sense of duty.

As for Iraq, my blood pressure is much better if I leave this out of my discussions, but I will pose one question to the younger folks on the board (post-Viet Nam era).

Have you served in the military? If not, is it possible to discuss duty with respect to the military, if you have not been a part of it?

 

 

Zippy

If that's true, then we can't discuss race relations, moonwalks, starvation in Africa...

In other words, yes, you can discuss duty regarding the military. In that respect, I find that "men in uniform", including firefighters and cops, are usually extremely supportive of their brothers-in-arms, probably because they have some sense of what it means to be in a job that may take the ultimate sacrifice.

I've also found that soldiers don't relish war, just as firefighters don't relish a home fire. But they're not pacificts. And if duty continues to call, and they see that what they are doing is important, then they re-enlist.

Maybe duty that comes from the heart means that the person does what is needed based on their own personal internal values, instead of being some 'burden' that is placed on them from outside forces.

 

I believe some people are born with a sense of duty but for most, we are taught it. I suspect anyone who has served their fellow man in any type the service has seen this - be it military, teaching, medical, politics, family, you name it. I believe it's a part of all of us that comes to bloom when you find yourself in a situation that feeds on inspiration. Often it is groups in harms way.

 

As a Nam vet who's BTDT, I can tell that you're wrong. It's very easy to separate the actions of our military personnel from the clique ultimately responsible for the war. One group acts out of a sense of duty and honor, while the other group...

Dean (Aren't ellipses wonderful things)