[lit-ideas] England Expects

  • From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:05:14 -0400 (EDT)


In a message dated 9/26/2013 11:33:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rpaul@xxxxxxxx expands on what England expects:
 
"that every man" (or Englishman as I prefer, for surely it would be  
presumptuous of England that Frenchmen should do as England confides -- 'engage 
 
the enemy more closely') 
 
will do his 'duty'.
 
The point is about duty.
 
Surely,
 
"Every man will do [what he deems is] his duty"
 
contrasts with the more vacuous
 
"Every man SHOULD do what he deems to be his duty".
 
Still, R. Paul makes an interesting difference between what we may call  
'transitory' duties and, for lack of a better epithet, 'non-transitory'  
duties:
 
He writes:


SCENARIO ONE:

"One of Cpl Oates' duties is to keep watch. One day he is relieved of this  
[transitory] duty. He no longer has it. He is free to go."
 
In further expansion:
 
At time t1, England confides that Cpl Oates will keep watch.

At time t2 > t1, England ceases to confides this.
 
--- In this scenario "no moral duties or imperatives appear [...]"
 
SCENARIO TWO (non-transitory duties)
 
R. Paul writes:
 
"Cpl Ferrington has a duty ('he ought') to respect the rights of others.  
His older brother, a debauched Oxonian, tells him that he no longer has such 
a  duty. When Ferrington asks why, his brother says, 'You just don't.' 'But 
it's my  moral duty,' says Oates. 'I can't just give it up because you say I 
should; I  always have it.'

In this scenario, "moral duties or imperatives" "do [appear]", again to use 
 R. Paul's words.
 
I would still distinguish between:
 
England expects that every man will engage the enemy more closely.
England expects that every man will do what he deems is his duty.
 
and
 
R. Paul's example
 
Ferrington should respect the rights of others [and I may add -- of 'his  
self'] 
 
It would be presumptuous of Nelson to utter that England to expect that  
Ferrington should respect the right of others -- especially in the context of 
a  war against the French, who are denied such rights to be respected.
 
It is still different with Admiral Togo, when, just before the battle of  
Tsushima, on May 26, 1905, he uttererd:
 
"The fate of Japan's Empire depends upon tomorrow's battle: let every  man 
do his utmost".
 
The Wikipedia notes:
 
"Togo had studied naval science in Greenwich, England from 1871 to 1878, so 
 he was possibly quoting from memory from Nelson".
 
Had he studied at St. John's College, Oxford -- with the then Wykeham  
professor of logic -- he would have noted that, for Aristotle, naval battles 
are 
 always contingential and involve high expectations. Note that Togo fails 
to  preface his claim with "Japan expects".
 
The issues are very complicated. They arose in connection with the Pope's  
infallibility:
 
i.e. when "the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "when,  in 
the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,   in 
virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine  
concerning  faith or morals to be held by the whole Church".
 
It struck me that 'a doctrine concerning ... morals' is a doctrine about  
_duties_, and so mutatis mutandis this should lead us to what 
 
The Pope expects.
 
While "there is one and only one body in heaven" 
 
seems to pertain to 'faith' rather than 'moral' (and thus not involve a  
duty), other instances of Papal infallibility may revolve around the idea that 
 the Pope expects of every 'man' (or 'woman') that he will do what, by 
Papal  infallibility, becomes 'his' (or 'her') duty. Or not.
 
Cheers,
 
Speranza
 






------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  • » [lit-ideas] England Expects - Jlsperanza