LibriumArcana.Games

This is something I've been thinking about for a while.

Everything good we have in society is due to a long, long succession of people doing something to contribute to humanity in their way. I'm not just talking about scientists making discoveries, but farmers breeding a slightly better cow for agriculture, parents bringing up good kids, citizens trying to improve their communities, etc, etc. (It's not all materialistic, because I would say that someone who makes really funny jokes or writes good stories also is making a contribution; life's definately improved with some humor.) This being said, do we have a duty to continue to do the same?

This leads to the next question. If we do have a duty to contribute something to society/humanity/whathaveyou, how tightly do we define a "contribution?" Specifically, does someone have to either make something new or have a noticeable effect on other people (children count here) for it to count?

I gotta point out that that most of these acts are done in self interest. A farmer breeding better cows get's more profit (or more food for himself and his family), good kids are more likely to support you in your old age and you're better off in a good community than in a crime ridden garage heap.

That does not invalidate the fact they are contributing to soceity, it just means that acting in a self interest is not always a bad thing. In fact the failure of communism may suggest that soceities that don't reward contribution or allow action in self interest are doomed to failure.

Now has for if we have a duty, we are better off in a working stable civilization than in complete chaos (observe E Timour in the late 90s or Solmalia). Because soceity keeps us safer and allows us to spend less effort in ensuring our survivial it is in our best interest to ensure that it keeps working and that it improves. Therefore humans should do their best to contribute in some manner.

The way they contribute is perhaps best left up to them has forcing contribution has not worked well in the past, however those who do somehow improve their enviroment should be allowed their reward. Rewarding them is the best way to encourage the behavior.

A contribuation would be anything that improves or helps continue soceity (that would be children there).

I'm going to have to go ahead and agree. Most people aren't selfless enough to make contributions solely for others, and not worry about themselves, but there are many who realize that in acting in other's interest they will act in their own. And this need not be direct consequences for them, it will be in what other people think of them.

Take, for example, the person who discovers a cure for cancer. He might never get cancer anyway, but the fame and rewards that will be heaped upon him will be plenty of encouragement.

Western society has, by natural of natural selection, evolved into a beast which rewards those who contribute. Make a wildly successful device, and chances are, you'll die very, very rich, and very, very famous. There's a few tragic cases otherwise(Tesla being the most notable), but the whole edifice rewards those who contribute.

Of course, at present, it also rewards folks who sit on patent applications while others develop real products and then get sued for having a successful product. And it also rewards the Backstreet Boys. But I'll take the good with the bad, as whoever develops clinical regeneration, quantum computing, and fusion power, will be very rich men, and will greatly contribute.

Well, I never said that people couldn't benefit for themselves along with it.

What I was asking was more along the lines of, "Do we have a duty not to be lazy slugs who sit around and mooch off other people or do just enough to get by." Sure, we could just work at a dead-end job all day in order to eat junk food and watch TV all night, but do we have a duty to do better than that in some shape or fashion (which may or may not involve getting rich)?

What I was asking was more along the lines of, "Do we have a duty not to be lazy slugs who sit around and mooch off other people or do just enough to get by." Sure, we could just work at a dead-end job all day in order to eat junk food and watch TV all night, but do we have a duty to do better than that in some shape or fashion (which may or may not involve getting rich)?

I think everyone pretty much argeed that did. Sorry for the sidetrack.

frigidmagi wrote:

What I was asking was more along the lines of, "Do we have a duty not to be lazy slugs who sit around and mooch off other people or do just enough to get by." Sure, we could just work at a dead-end job all day in order to eat junk food and watch TV all night, but do we have a duty to do better than that in some shape or fashion (which may or may not involve getting rich)?

I think everyone pretty much argeed that did. Sorry for the sidetrack.

That's alright. I wasn't very clear from the onset about what I was asking.

I've just been kicking around different little ideas in my head about morality, society, philosophy, and I have a hard time figuring out how to ask about them sometimes because they can get pretty weird.