4 ms·
I upmodded you because I think you raise a valid argument. But I do disagree, because I don't think it's immoral for a highly skilled doctor to quit his profess
by trekker7 18y ago
I upmodded you because I think you raise a valid argument. But I do disagree, because I don't think it's immoral for a highly skilled doctor to quit his profession and open up a comic book store to sell Pokemon cards instead. Yes, society will be worse off for it. But does society have a right to tell the former doctor what profession he should take up? Morals would dictate that people have a basic right to do what they enjoy, as long as they aren't hurting anyone by their actions.
But is it a waste of talent for a good doctor to quit his job and pursue a less philanthropic effort? Yeah, that's probably valid.
- xlnt 18y agoI don't think he owes anything to society. I think he should do what's best for himself. If that's pokemon, so be it, but he'd be better off, and live a better life, if he cared more about thinking and learning and doing great things. Good ways of life reward the doer most of all.
- trekker7 18y agoYeah, I can definitely agree with that dude. The doctor's life might be overall better if he finds a way to enjoy it.
- izak30 18y agoThis is completely contradictory to your original argument. Your original argument was 'if you can do "better" and you're not-> you are guilty of having immoral values' Completely neglecting the subjectivity of morality, this statement above says that he should do what is best for himself, even if that is pokemon or football (citing your examples only..nothing wrong with pokemon or football), and I think the only global definition of morality is what one 'should do' (with a different set of rules in each subset definition).
- xlnt 18y agoi don't see how you can call my position contradictory just b/c you disagree that morality is objective. that's not an internal contradiction -- i consistently consider it objective.