HM The Queen & the implications of ‘duty’
There’s a lot of pseudo republican nonsense in the press about HM the Queen ‘snubbing’ her eldest sons second wedding. The tabloid press in particular are full of what can only be briefly described as ‘crap’. You know, the stuff this new labour lot are full of.
Mrs Sticker, a woman of far more intelligence and wit than I could ever hope to find in two lifetimes, pointed out the following;
The Queen, who is, in addition to all her other sterling qualities a woman of great moral stature, cannot attend the civil ceremony because the Church of England’s general synod is against it. It is her Church, and she is both the head of it, and duty bound to support it. There is no ‘snub’, real or implied, as she will attend the service of dedication and is paying for the reception afterwards. QED. Now shut up.
Duty is a very old fashioned concept and one which I have a lot of time for. My own definition is that duty is a voluntary moral contract to perform certain acts because of previous obligations. Ergo; I, as a Traffic Warden, am handing you, the errant motorist, a parking ticket because it is my duty to do so because you have failed in your obligation and responsibility (Implied because you have voluntarily gone through the hoops to get a driving licence) to observe this part of the traffic law.
If I don’t like the law, I campaign with others to parliament to get the law altered. In our democracy, if parliament fails in it’s duty to responsibly represent the voters (Of whom I happen to be an active one), it is parliament which must change.
Lets think about that for a while. Like it or not our lives are a web of duties and obligations, not just ‘rights’ (A ‘right’ does not and cannot exist without attendant responsibilities – no such thing as a free lunch). Doubtless some unctuous weasel of a lawyer could indicate how the same logical path could justify killing another human being (It does in the case of the military – but that’s a dichotomy for another day). However, these are the rules that make it safe to cross the road guys. Enjoy your lives.
Mrs Sticker, a woman of far more intelligence and wit than I could ever hope to find in two lifetimes, pointed out the following;
The Queen, who is, in addition to all her other sterling qualities a woman of great moral stature, cannot attend the civil ceremony because the Church of England’s general synod is against it. It is her Church, and she is both the head of it, and duty bound to support it. There is no ‘snub’, real or implied, as she will attend the service of dedication and is paying for the reception afterwards. QED. Now shut up.
Duty is a very old fashioned concept and one which I have a lot of time for. My own definition is that duty is a voluntary moral contract to perform certain acts because of previous obligations. Ergo; I, as a Traffic Warden, am handing you, the errant motorist, a parking ticket because it is my duty to do so because you have failed in your obligation and responsibility (Implied because you have voluntarily gone through the hoops to get a driving licence) to observe this part of the traffic law.
If I don’t like the law, I campaign with others to parliament to get the law altered. In our democracy, if parliament fails in it’s duty to responsibly represent the voters (Of whom I happen to be an active one), it is parliament which must change.
Lets think about that for a while. Like it or not our lives are a web of duties and obligations, not just ‘rights’ (A ‘right’ does not and cannot exist without attendant responsibilities – no such thing as a free lunch). Doubtless some unctuous weasel of a lawyer could indicate how the same logical path could justify killing another human being (It does in the case of the military – but that’s a dichotomy for another day). However, these are the rules that make it safe to cross the road guys. Enjoy your lives.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home