What do we owe society?

It seems a straightforward question, does it not? A test of this principle came during the Antonine Plague. As emperor, it would have been simple to distance myself, to preserve my own health and comfort. Yet, could I, in good conscience, abandon the people to their suffering? My duty, as I perceived it, was to remain, to organize aid, to offer what solace I could, even at the risk of my own life. For what is the worth of an emperor who values his own safety above the well-being of his people?

While the Emperor's actions during the Antonine Plague appear laudable on the surface, and Ms. Sharpe is right to question motives, I believe we must delve deeper into the very nature of "duty." Is it truly a virtue if it springs merely from fear of censure or pragmatic self-interest? A sense of obligation imposed by one's station is no substitute for genuine moral conviction. Furthermore, what of the Emperor's duty to himself, to cultivate his own reason and understanding? Surely, a society truly benefits when its leaders are not simply bound by rigid expectations, but are instead individuals capable of independent thought and moral discernment. A focus on the collective, without concurrent cultivation of individual virtue, risks devolving into tyranny.