Mortals' Duty

In The Bhagavad-Gita duties are defined by mortals and society. While in the Qur’an and Genesis absolute duties are clearly laid out by God, The Bhagavad-Gita presents multiple interpretations of duty in the debate between Arjuna and Krishna. Arjuna focuses on the ideas Arjuna focuses on “family duty” (1:39), which regulates how he should act towards members of his family. Killing his kinsmen in the opposing army would violate this duty, and “When the family is ruined, the timeless laws of family duty perish” (1:39). If people can cause a duty to perish by ruining its foundation and no longer respecting it, the duty itself must have been established by people creating a foundation in the family and adhering to a set of rules and duties surrounding that social structure. However, just because a duty is defined by humans does not mean there are not consequences for breaking it. Arjuna makes clear that “when duty is lost, chaos overwhelms the family... women are corrupted, disorder is born in society. This discord drags the violators and the family itself to hell” (1:39-41). The consequences of dispensing with family duty are severe; however, they are all natural results of what happens when the duties which hold the family together are abandoned. Even the concept of hell is a consequence brought about by society, as the family descends into hell “when rites of offering rice and water lapse” (1:41-42). Family duty is defined by humans, can be destroyed by humans, and the consequences of that destruction come about without the interference of external deities.
When responding to Arjuna’s arguments, Krishna does not mention family duty, turning instead to the idea of “sacred duty” (2:31). This sacred duty in Arjuna’s obligation as a famous warrior to fight and kill in war, and while it may be referred to as sacred, it is also defined by his actions and role in society. Arjuna’s duty is specific to him, as is shown by Krishna referring specifically to “your own duty” (2:30) when speaking to him. Krishna also states that “nothing is better for a warrior than a battle of sacred duty” (2:30-31). Arjuna is defined by his role as a warrior, and that role leads him to have certain duties in the eyes of gods and humans. Like family duty, the consequences of breaking from his duty as a warrior are defined by human interactions. Krishna warns that if Arjuna flees the battle “People will tell of your undying shame, and for a man of honor shame is worse than death” (2:33-34). Instead of being compelled by a higher power, Arjuna is motivated to obey his duty out of fear of losing his reputation among the mortals. Like family duty, the sacred duty of a warrior described by Krishna is shaped by society’s perceptions of a person and his actions.
While The Qur’an and Genesis have duties clearly defined by God, The Bhagavad-Gita describes multiple types of duties, which sometimes conflict with each other. These duties are defined by individuals’ and society’s perceptions; a duty can be created or destroyed depending on how society’s views change, and the results of violating duties are all natural consequences, rather than divine punishments. This framework for duty leads to Arjuna and Krishna focusing on conflicting types of duty, fueling their argument about whether or not to participate in the battle.