3 ms·
No, I wouldn't call that immoral at all. Immoral, to me at least, is when you cause harm to other people. There's absolutely nothing wrong with deciding you d
by mlinsey 18y ago
No, I wouldn't call that immoral at all. Immoral, to me at least, is when you cause harm to other people.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with deciding you don't want to devote enormous amounts of time and effort to something creative. For example, you can touch plenty of people's lives and have a tremendous positive impact on the world just by being there for your friends and family, something that devoting yourself to an intensely creative endeavor probably interferes with.
Don't get me wrong - entrepreneurs, authors, and other creative people are special people. That's why they are rewarded (sometimes) with praise, admiration, or money. But that most emphatically does not mean that they are better or more moral people than those who choose to live more ordinary lives.
- xlnt 18y agoThe moral question is: how should I live? But anyway, use whatever words you want, I've told you what I meant: living better, more fruitful lives with more learning and thinking. And people who could do that, but don't, are guilty of living badly, living below their abilities. This is not just a matter of opinion or taste. For example, we are only able to communicate here because of scientific achievement; that is objectively more important than pokemon. And, for example, no one is perfect, so people who correct more of their mistakes end up better than those who don't. People who think and learn more are more able and effective at correcting their mistakes to improve themselves.
- radu_floricica 18y agoMorality comes from living and the way you live, not the other way around. Morality is just one of the tools we use to live better. It's definitely not something to judge how well we live.
- xlnt 18y agoif morality is a tool to use to live better (i agree), then people who don't use it, or use little of it, are immoral, and ought to change.