It’s hard for people to have a sense of duty when they feel and have been told they are entitled to everything. That jack wagon in the white house is only a few years older then I am. My generation sucks as well.
This is, I believe, a key point which sets our culture apart from that of classical Rome ... in a bad way. (We're different from them in some good ways, too.)
Classical philosophy, as exemplified by Cicero, emphasized duties and obligations, not rights and entitlements. The focus on "rights" promotes self-absorption; it also puts far too much emphasis on the feelings of the individual.
For example, a comment on FR stated that, "People have a right not to be bothered" by the presence of handicapped children at Mass. Obviously, the creation ex nihilo of a "right not to be bothered" by others is problematic, to say the least.
It is far more productive to say that adults have a duty to limit the disturbance their children cause to others, to an extent that depends on circumstances. No one can be excluded from attending Mass, unless he is a positive danger to others, but there is a duty to limit the disturbance to the extent reasonably possible. However, parents could reasonably conclude that their duty of consideration for others precludes their ever taking a child who is noisy (for whatever reason) to a movie theater.
Consider the newly-minted "right not to be offended." This is obviously nonsense. However, the duties of Christians - to be truthful, to restrain anger, to avoid ridicule and calumny - tend to limit the occasions in which they will offend others.
Take the "right" to food, clothing, shelter, education ... basically to a comfortable life with everything ... that is often proposed, or the right to "equality." Doesn't it make more sense to say that people have a duty to promote the general good of society by showing practical concern for others? Christians have a additional duty to manifest their love of neighbor sacrificially.
Yes, good point.