The Virtue of Duty

"If our age is the age of the anti-hero and the loss of heroism, perhaps it has something to do with the eclipse of the virtue of duty." - R.C. Sproul

What is duty? Merriam-Webster gives two definitions which apply to Dr. Sproul's quote above: one is an obligatory task, conduct, service or function that arise from one's position, the other a moral or legal obligation or the force of such an obligation.

Virtue, for those that wonder, is defined per the discussion above as "a conformity to a standard of right, a particular moral excellence, a commendable quality or trait".

So here is a seeming contradiction needing to be melded together on the forge of life: an obligation to be kept and performed which is a moral excellence and commendable trait? On the face it appears to be a form of oxymoron: I must do something, but by the compulsory nature of doing it I am morally commendable? I have to, but because I do that's a good thing?

(I had to re-read the above paragraph three times. I've confused even myself).

But this seems to be Sproul's argument, that the eclipse of this commendable quality of keeping obligations is related to failure of heroism in our age. I like heroes; I worship (if that word is appropriate) heroic qualities and the heroic epics of old. You would think this would be a simple acquiesce for me. But it's not.

Why? I have always torn at the bit under any sense of authoritarian control. It's always my argument against making decisions: once you make them, you get held to them. Therefore, any sense that keeping obligations (decided on or just pushed on) is an excellent moral quality raises the hackles on the back of my neck.

Why? Because virtue is usually portrayed as something of value and emulation. Obligations do not bring emulation to the mind.

But perhaps I am not making a distinction that Sproul does: The focus of that duty.

There is duty that we choose. These are the things we enter into willingly, even if we cannot see all roads to the end. These, I believe Sproul would support, are those in which there is moral excellence in keeping.

But what about the duties we don't choose, the things that are charged us that we did not select? Here there is an interesting breakdown: as a Christian, I think I am called to carry these out as well.

Why? Because God is a god who keeps promises, who does His duty at no matter what cost to Him (it cost Him His son). As children of such a Father, we want (or should want) to emulate such a parent.

But then my soul rises up in me. "Duty" it says "sounds so dull, so dry, so...militant. 'Doing your duty' can be another phrase for 'doing what I have to do, even when I don't want to and don't feel like it.'"

It's true. And it does. Much better to say "Do your wants" or "Do your passions". Those sound virtuous. Duty, not so much.

But even I am forced admit that in all the heroic epics of the past (the real ones, not the pastel ones of the last 100 years) the hero maintains his obligations and does his duty, even at the cost to himself: Leonidas at Thermopylae, Lancelot and Arthur, Roland of Ronceveaux, Torii Mototada at Fushimi, Jan Hus, the Swiss Guard at the Tuileries.

So the equation is this: Be a hero, do my duty - at any cost to me. If I value heroism this is the only option.