Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
PrintPage: 1 2
 Wasting your talents. | |
|
keda
Ijon Tichy  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 25, 2005 Location: Finland Total Topics: 40 Total Posts: 4015 |
 #11
Gnist wrote: ....so allow me to throw a monkey wrench into the topic..... What if you talent happens to be (as the world might see it) evil? Hitler, Stalin, and Caligula were all quite good at what they did..... as unpleasant as it was..... Talents cannot be evil in themselves, but can be employed for evil as well as good. A tool can never be evil in itself, but is only useful for one purpose or another. All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer |
|
Techeth
Assistant Professor  Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 19, 2008 Total Topics: 10 Total Posts: 294 |
#12
PontificatingChauncy wrote: If it is within the scope of a person's abilities to do great and glorious things, is it selfish to instead choose a life of simple contentment? And more importantly, is this selfish on an unethical scale? Some things I feel I should add to the question: I'm not talking about choosing hedonism: the life you choose to live will be very normal and hardworking. An example would be the sterotype of the brilliant Roman general who just wants to go home and be a farmer. Although you will be doing a job that is very difficult and not something you want, it will result in you being powerful, widely known and loved, economically comfortable and possibly historical. The thing you are doing will ultimately be benificial to the people around you, possibly nesscesary. We can never know the impact we will have on history, the man may believe he will be a great general that changes the world but he can not know it. Also I am pretty sure many of the families of the men in the armies he would have slaughtered will feel he has made the right decision in tending to the farm. We can not know what is best, the impact he would have had had he chosen to go or stay, we can but hope and believe that the justifications we make for our decisions are the right one. So it cannot be selfish, the only thing we can be responsible for is the effects things have on ourselves, beyond that we hope, I think it's only selfish if we know what we have, i.e I have a cure for cancer but I decide to grow tomatoes. Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy THINK QUICK! Your future just became your past. |
|
LukeS
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 15, 2008 Total Topics: 5 Total Posts: 50 |
#13
I think this is a very subjective matter, depending in part on one's prior determination of what "goodness" is, insofar as it can be desctiptively objectified. If it is health, and a man wastes a talent for medicine, or burns a insightful paper on cancer treatment, then one could conclude that the waster is immoral. If your determination revolves also around personal freedom and individual expression, one's talents would be "one's own" to do with what one wished. A communitarian/socialist moral identity and stance could result in a different outlook and set of conclusions. I find each approach has it's virtues to be exploited at various junctures. None of these perspectives are necessary, or intrinsically "right". Morality is contingent, and changes from person to person - there is no absolute standard by which to assess multitude of opinions, but only one's own best efforts at "virtue". What's my view on the issue then? Well, I don't think I can generalise, and, given such a limited set of datum, I can't even judge about the hypothetical Roman general. I feel I would have to know much more about the state of affairs, about the intentions and consequences, before I could begin to adequately judge. There is no simple "yes" or "no" answer which is valid in my eves for all possible scenarios. What if a man wasted his talents for cooking sweets, and became a wheat farmer instead. Now, perhaps the dental hygeine of the population would improve as a benign consequence. What is someone had a talent for accounting, but abused it by helping clients to avoid fair taxation? Would it not have been better if he had simply found a factory job? Perhaps, who knows? These are cases where "wastage" might not be such a bad thing. There could easily be opposing examples, for instance a detective's talent for solving sadistic, brutal and needless murders would be wrongly neglected if he simply ignored it's effects, hence there are no general rules. What I will add as a qualification is that I do not assume wastage to mean "necessarily evil" and talent "necessarily good". If that were the case, all wastage of talent would be immoral, or wrong, to some or other degree. Edited by LukeS on May 27, 2008 - 10:03 AM |
|
Logically
new in town  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 01, 2008 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 20 |
#14
If it is within the scope of a person's abilities to do great and glorious things, is it selfish to instead choose a life of simple contentment? The answer is yes, selfish actions are motivated by one's own interests and clearly the subject is interested (for personal reasons) in being a farmer and not a general (in your example). I was surprised The Rational Animal didn't mention this part, but that's only based on his avatar and sig  And more importantly, is this selfish on an unethical scale? Selfishness is not and cannot be unethical. Someone cannot be so selfish that they become unethical. Other factors have to come into play. Being selfish means being concerning with ones own values, if a person is destructive of other's values to achieve their own it is not as a result of selfishness but rather a moral and ethical delinquency. Its like asking can someone be able to run so fast its unethical, one does not apply to the other. And if your with holding something good, are you not in fact doing evil? HalcyonGlaze answered this wonderfully I just wanted to add a little. If withholding something good was evil then by not giving your coat to someone who needed it would be evil. This applies to your hat, your shoes, your socks, and everything else you own. If I mailed you a check for $100 right now it would be good for you, I won't be doing that of course and it won't be an act of evil. Talents cannot be evil in themselves, but can be employed for evil as well as good. A tool can never be evil in itself, but is only useful for one purpose or another. Great response. |
|
natureculturenothing
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 18, 2006 Total Topics: 6 Total Posts: 107
|
#15
Most definitions of "ethical" or "moral" are abstract or emotional. I "think" it is wrong or it "feels" wrong. Is there an experience of reality more fundamental than thought or feeling? ...an ultra-vivid indescribable union with the moment, in which alternates silent passive awe and timeless absorbed action, and to which thought and feeling are but elements; beautiful when beneath the moment, but elevated above it corrupting. When I put my thoughts and feeling before this moment my ability to love it is restricted, and felt as painful, frustrating, fear and anxiety-inducing, and selfishly unhappy. |
|
Melighted
Aspirant  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 24, 2008 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 29 |
#16
PontificatingChauncy wrote: If it is within the scope of a person's abilities to do great and glorious things, is it selfish to instead choose a life of simple contentment? And more importantly, is this selfish on an unethical scale? Are we talking about George Washington or Adolf Hitler? Your question is hypothetical. If a person IS living a life of simple contentment then his ability to do great and glorious things is in the realm of imagination and not reality. Don't confuse the two. Being selfish IS great and glorious whether that means living simply or living extravagantly. |
|
ununilhexium
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 30, 2008 Location: planet earth Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 5 |
#17
I would argue that yes, it is selfish to leave your potential for great things unused in favor of a lifestyle you prefer more. However, I would also argue that selfishness is part of human nature, and a good thing. Ultimately, I believe that each human should live for his/herself, and not necessarily to the perceived benefit of the greater community. If everyone is forced into labor that they are perhaps better suited for, but do not find happiness in, does that even really benefit the community anyway? It certainly doesn't benefit the individual, or create a peaceful environment. Personally, I would rather see someone "wasting" their perceived talents in favor of a life they enjoy than to see that same person forced into a life of misery. I would also find it against my personal values to press obligation upon anyone to do something they would not ultimately find happiness in. Promoting unhappiness seems more "evil" to me than withholding capability. "a little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal." -- wilde. |
Page: 1 2
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.