You asked some very pointed questions. They point to the "quandry" that a lot of dojos are faced with.
1- If there is a "DO" aspect can it exist in the student before he has some grasp of the JUTSU aspects.
Yes. I find there are students, especially in aikido, Tai Chi and other so-call "internal martial arts", who are there for reasons other than learning to fight. It would take way too long to be profcient in those arts to make it worthwhile. I respect these students for their clairity and sincerity of purpose, "DO". But then I have some instructors saying cockamanie things like, "Oh, if you do the technique just this way, your opponent is completely off balanced and helpless." Perhaps, I have an insurgent mentality in me. I would then work with a few training partners who I trust and are interested in more "realistic" perspectives on the very same technique. I'll show then how I CAN get my balance back before they can effect the throw and BLAST his/her head with a good punch or launch a strong low kick.
2- Should an attempt at the "DO" even be made before the student has some realistic "street skills".
Okay, I'll quote Marc "Animal" MacYoung, one of my favorite "street-wise" authors, and then ask you some questions.
"You know, there is much to be said about the evolution of a word or term. Many terms originally meant one thing but over the years have come to mean something entirely different. Such is, my opinion, what happened to the term 'martial arts.' Sun Tzu was a martial artist. Genghas Khan and his generals Subatai and Jebei Noyon were martial artists. Napoleon was a martial artist. Gen. George Patton was a martial artist. Bruce Lee, however, was not. He (and thousands like him) was a specialist.
The literal translation of 'martial art' is the 'art of war.' That's a mighty big topic that finer minds than you and I have pondered for more than a few millenia. The art of war is something that goes light years beyond just standing in the ring. It means studying and understanding the myriad aspects of conflict and warfar, including the reality of hw to retreat safely. To become a true martial artist, you must master all aspects of warfare, including when and how not to fight. Lao Tzu, in the Tao Te Ching, said it best: 'A good soldier is not violent. A good figher is not angry. A good winner is not vengeful.' This goes beyond the testosterone-crazed aggression and misplaced machismo we call 'martial arts.' It instead leads into something very special -- professionalism. Very few American martial artists are professionals, and listening to them can get you killed." (MacYoung, Street E&E, p. 172-3)
Here are my questions. How many of us have really gone through the "street situations" we purport to teach our students to defend against? How many have bashed a head with a 2x4, stabbed and slashed, popped a couple? How many have been bashed, stabbed and shot and live to tell about the reactions to that? How many know about the repercussions from cops and, worse, determined avengers? If not, how would one propose to teach these. Sort of like Columbus (today is Columbus Day) sailing straight west to find Asia. He was lucky and is now celebrated. How many others attempted the same but were lost at sea, or swallowed by the "dragons?"
Let say there are instructors out there with these experiences. Do these instructors really want to teach such skills to "civilians?" Okay, if the answer is "yes", imagine the type of students you will be getting.
What most martial arts schools offer today is really a confused specialty -- be it "DO", sports karate, or the ego gratifying BLACK BELT.
There are "koryu" (old tradition) schools that teach the multifaceted skills needed in FEUDAL warfare. In that they are teaching warfare, their mindset is definitely more "martial". But even then, they are a bit outdated without teaching the specifics of the gun and ordinance. The same applies to Filipino/Indonesian arts. I know I'll get crap for this, but I think Koryu, Filipino and Indonesian arts teach what would be more appropriately described today as "self-defense" arts. The only martial arts left is in the "special forces" of the military.
3- As in the "DO" way is there a moral responsibility here not to take advantage of the uninitiated even if they are niave or foolih enough to let you.
Let us each Look deeply into your own hearts and answer this question.
P.S. George sensei, indeed your classes have been more opened to new ideas and experimentation than most dojos I've been to. This approach can help in a "simple fist fight" or even, perhaps, against an opponent with a knife/club type weapon. I truly do enjoy the classes. But, no, there is still a quantum leap to the streets. The mentality and the tuition needed for "mean streets" are not taught. To be fair, these probably cannot be taught. People pick it up by going through and surviving those situations. A soldier is not really a soldier until he has gone through his first "firefight".