On Duty

The notion of Duty has fallen into disrepute among certain circles, who accuse it of being a hollow shell, an exterior manifestation of nothingness within. I am willing to concede that these individuals are not deliberately malicious, nor willfully blind to opinions other than their own. If they are, then this writing is futile, but if they are not, I hope that this response will enable them to understand more thoroughly the beliefs of others.

It is true that the performance of duty, the evidence available to skeptics’ eyes, is an external phenomenon. Performance, by its nature, must be exterior; even those engaged in prayer or meditation betray outwardly some little sign of their inward reverie. Even if the performance of duty demands an inconvenience incommensurate with mere appearance of dutifulness, some might say that there is an intestine void.

When someone states that to do something is their duty, it is not the external which receives emphasis, but rather the internal. Duty is a stronger word than job, which implies external coercion; if someone feels something is their duty, that is an internal impulse which finds an external release. If someone fails to fulfill whatever they believe to be their duty, that individual will feel guilty, an internal sensation.

Now it is true that on occasion, someone acts in ways that he or she does not feel inside at that time. Even this situation is not without value, if the external performance of duty is habitual. An action repeated many times becomes more fluid and more automatic, which again need not be a bad result if one takes the opportunity to internalize the reasons previously expressed with external actions. Indeed, the less one has to think about the action, the more one can focus on one’s own intention and will to action.

These are my thoughts and feelings on the matter. I am not a professional debater or philosopher, so dispute them if you like, but do not presume that your point of view is the only valid one.