| Do we have a duty to work? Like to help the economy that benefits everyone, and otherwise we're free-riding? What if we already have enough and aren't free-riding but we have what you could call reserve capacity (to work). Like time and ability, some skill. Do we have some (moral or other) duty to put that to work? |
|
No. 02. 12:05pm 23 Aug 22 >>03 >>13 If we did then the person creating you is saddling you with that on top of the burden of sustaining and providing for *your own life* which even as you may enjoy it is... (!) 'because now if you don't you're going to face much suffering'. Since you didn't sign up for... |
|
No. 03. 12:08pm 23 Aug 22 >>14 But didn't you find the trick that makes 'a duty not a burden'? |
|
absurdum No. 07. 12:33pm 23 Aug 22 >>09 No, because consider: Be careful with what your proposed duty on 'spare' capacity would imply. What's 'spare'? If you're goofing around watching tv after your hard day's work at charity.org, couldn't you technically be working then too, either on some 'good works' or at some cash job to give the cash away? A duty to use capacity means grinding down your own life to nothing. |
|
No. 08. 12:44pm 23 Aug 22 >the economy that helps everyone This isn't true though, unfortunately. Superficially, intuitively, it seems obvious but ... |
|
No. 09. 02:55pm 23 Aug 22 >>11 An obligation being annoying isn't evidence that it doesn't exist. |
|
No. 10. 03:43pm 23 Aug 22 >>11 If there were a moral duty to work, you would be the only person obeying it lol. Because nobody, not a single person in the economy, is working out of fulfilling a duty 'to contribute'. They work because they want the outcomes (for themselves) that come from the work and that's great, because the system we have set up is specifically designed so they do that and it's a win-win - economic goods are generated that are valuable to those who want to pay for them and people doing the work get money that's worth more to them than the time they give. If you don't want to play it's you who misses out. |
|
No. 11. 12:33am 25 Aug 22 Right, so we have that a duty entailing a very heavy burden doesn't mean that the duty doesn't exist, and we can likewise say that everyone not following a duty doesn't mean it doesn't exist - but these conditions certainly mean something. They certainly makes us not feel like it's necessary to follow the duty, which raises the issue of what/where a duty is at all.* (*unaddressd) Is it just in our own conscience, or is it among people who judge each other, or what? (It might be worth OP trying to rephrase the question in some more fundamental terms and seeing if this issue goes away.) Peter Singer has his proposition of the Drowning Child Problem. But if, as soon as you had them safe another child's cries were heard, and then after that another, and so on... Soon enough we would be quite confident in concluding that we just live in a world where many children don't get to live. (...As long as there's a lake. Thinking about trying to get some people together to get rid of the lake is something you might consider, but while you're doing that, the kids are drowning at a rate but you are not going to allow yourself to be stressed by that or feel judged for not rescuing them all. some you still rescue as you can but you don't fret the lost ones.) Still now with this scenario, we need to think, why is nobody supervising their kids? where are all their kids coming from? Are the kids you're saving the ones are falling in the next day? Are you saving them at all? What kind of life are you restoring them to these kids that can't help hurling themselves into water, hmmmm? The point is that none of that gets raised by the Singer one-shot scenario, which is why it's not a real model of the problem. Treating chronic as acute leads to false implications.So, |
|
No. 12. 07:17pm 25 Aug 22 >Do we have a duty Look, you're not going to be able to work that out. You're not going to hit upon the rule for how one should live, because there's no right answer. It's all just muddling, because we got here arbitrarily. The appropriate approach, the answer to 'what's right to do' is: Sit and concentrate/let be until your defilements pipe down and you become honest. Integrity and untroubledness arrives. Then ask your conscience and it will tell you. |
|
No. 13. 07:33pm 25 Aug 22 >didn't sign up for Yeah but. As much as you didn't sign up, neither did your neighbor. You're ... |
|
No. 14. 12:05pm 26 Aug 22 Maybe I did but I'm if essentially the only person who did - like me and a few hundred other people, then you can't reason about these things on the basis of us. But this raises the question, actually: If everything is from the mind and suffering is in the mind and the cause of it is the mental action of craving, etc, but nobody knows that, and there's no chance for them to learn that - I mean, not to mention animals... good luck teaching it to them - then, is it relevant at all? |
|
No. 15. 01:25pm 26 Aug 22 ...scopes |
|
>duty There is no duty at all unless you decide what others want/their wellbeing is your business. |
|
No. 05. 11:30 AM 23-Aug-22 >>01 >>06 >duty There is no duty at all unless you decide what others want/their wellbeing is your business. |
|
>duty There is no duty at all unless you decide what others want/their wellbeing is your business. |
|
No. 06. 11:41am 23-Aug-22 >>01 >duty There is no duty at all unless you decide what others want/their wellbeing is your business. |