Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Talent and responsibility

  1. sure

    20.0%
  2. not at all

    60.0%
  3. we might be but i don't care

    5.0%
  4. that depends

    15.0%
  1. Nov 9, 2007 #1
    are we responsible towards others-humanity, our country-because of our talents? suppose a very intelligent person who is able to do so many improvements want to spend his time on doing something else other than science.something like a money making job or even do nothing other than daydreaming. is he morally responsible.people tend to like what they are good at, and u can think he's intersted in science but he just doesn't go for it because he thinks that he can't make so many money by doing science or perhaps he's just lazy. what's your ideas?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 9, 2007 #2

    J77

    User Avatar

    People should be able to do what they like. As long as it makes them happy and doesn't harm, even through association, others.

    btw: I don't think the absence of one intelligent, even "very intelligent", person would make much difference to any country's scientific program. In fact, if that person considers themselves above others, maybe it's best for everyone if they do stick to daydreaming.
     
  4. Nov 9, 2007 #3
    we want to see whether it's morally justified or not. we don't want to see its has a effects on society or science . i hadn't mentioned that person consider himself above all.
     
  5. Nov 9, 2007 #4

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'll give you my opinion:
    Society is there for you ; you are not there for society. I see society as a "deal between different individuals to get out mutual benefit". The goal of your life is to lead a happy life and it is entirely up to you how you achieve that goal. Concepts such as "society" and "humanity" are abstractions: you are not indebted to any abstraction no more than you are responsible with respect to, say, linear differential equations.
     
  6. Nov 9, 2007 #5

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Your talents don't come with any "moral obligation" to use those talents. There's not even a guarantee that using your talents would benefit anyone anyway. If you do something else you enjoy, there might be much more chance you'll be successful and provide a benefit to society because you keep at it. Besides, your opening post includes an assumption that one can't benefit society and make a profit at the same time. I don't see that as making much sense. Making a profit is an incentive society offers to those with talent to pursue their talents if society deems that as something beneficial to them...if they can't reciprocate by sharing an equally valuable talent, they offer currency that can be used elsewhere to pay for a service you need.

    The only place morals/ethics would apply is to not use your talents to harm others.
     
  7. Nov 9, 2007 #6
    Christianity and Judaism do have such an obligation. Perhaps other religions do as well.
     
  8. Nov 9, 2007 #7
    i hope astronuc explains why he think it does:smile:
     
  9. Nov 9, 2007 #8
    I entered that it depends. I would currently say that the answer is no, however, as we move along in time, eventually there might be the release of the ability to design your babies for specific enhanced talents. In that case, the kid would not have a choice.
     
  10. Nov 9, 2007 #9
    I think morally, people with talents should use those talents. Of course, you dont have to, no one is holding a gun to your head. But, we are talking about wether it is moral to waste a givin talent. Its moral to be a good person in life but no one is making you. Just because someone has the right to waste a talent, it does not make it moral. The question of Morality is an entirely different question as to whether soemone has the right to not use it. Talented people were given a gift and to waste a gift I think is immoral, when there is possible good that can come out of that gift. Jutst like if you were given a million dollars, would you not think it would be immoral to burn it when you could have done something so much better with it?
     
  11. Nov 9, 2007 #10

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Yes - morality is by choice.

    I can only speak for myself - but yes I have a responsibility to use my talents as best I can to serve all of humanity to the best of my ability. It is a self-imposed obligation. It is a reciprocal arrangement. The socities in which I have lived have provided me an opportunity to thrive and learn, and in exchange I have an obligation to use that which I have learned to the benefit of humanity.

    It's not only Judeo-Christian, but is echoed in most religions and cultures.

    It is in ujima and nia.

    For me it is tikkun olam ( תיקון עולם ).

    My parents and grandparents more or less instilled this in me, but ultimately it is a matter of personal choice.
     
  12. Nov 9, 2007 #11
    This is the kind of thing church leaders, parents, and teachers said to kids all the time when I was growing up.
     
  13. Nov 9, 2007 #12

    JasonRox

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Burning the money should be irrelevant. If the church says that, then they're putting value into money, which I believe contradicts other values that they have.

    I don't believe it to be a responsibility to use your talent at all.

    I believe that one should live life in freedom. To have that responsibility is not freedom.
     
  14. Nov 9, 2007 #13

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You're assuming it's a gift and not that they just happened to work hard at it like anyone else.

    Though, something else in the OP has caught my attention now. If someone is able to make money at something, doesn't that imply talent in that thing, at least sufficiently so that people will pay them to do it? Why would they do that for free if they can be paid for it? There's nothing immoral about getting paid to do what you're good at...it would be pretty stupid to not get paid for it...how else would you survive? Seems kind of immoral to throw away good talent by starving oneself to death because you gave away your services for free.
     
  15. Nov 9, 2007 #14

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The problem with the "gift" is that that means that there's a being on the receiving end and another being at the "sending" end, and that this gift induces some kind of debt of the one at the receiving end to the one at the sending end. That's of course a religious point of view, and from the moment one talks religion, one leaves "morality", as morality is now replaced by the dictate from the Giver, and you're supposed to do whatever the Giver tells you to do, not even for some kind of goodness, but just to avoid you being tortured in the Giver's torture chamber (hell or an equivalent). In other words, is acting under the menace of torture really "behaving morally" ?

    So we have to consider the question outside of any "stick and carrot" religious viewpoint. There are two possible viewpoints: you have some "moral obligation" or you don't. I already argued for the last pov, but I'll analyse a bit further the first. You are having a moral obligation, of course "to do good". That means that your actions are supposed to do "good" in the future. But that poses 2 other problems: what is "good" ? But even if you could answer that, the question is: are you sure that the way you are going to put your talents to use is really going to be "good" in the future ? Or will it lead to a disaster ?

    For instance, we think of course that Stalin was a bad man. But maybe, amongst the 20 million people he killed, he also killed a guy who would have become a bigger evil than Hitler and who would have started WW III or something. You don't know. Also, did Oppenheimer use his talents correctly in developping the atomic bomb ? You can argue that it was going to be develloped in any case, true. But if he'd develloped it a bit slower, say, 1 year later, then probably Japan would have surrendered by then, and there wouldn't have been a use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But was this a good or a bad thing ? Was the horror of Hiroshima not what has refrained people later from using nuclear weapons in a conflict ?

    It is very very hard to say that if you do something (of significance), whether this will be good or bad. Oppenheimer hesitated picking up physics: he was also very interested in Sanskrite. Should he have used his talents there or did he do the right thing ?

    To me, life is a random walk, and beyond the very near future, an impenetrable fog doesn't allow us to glimpse where our pads lead us. Hence we don't know, at every turn, whether this is a "good" or a "bad" turn in the long run. And in the end it doesn't even matter.
     
  16. Nov 10, 2007 #15
    I'm not sure why people keep bringing the church into the argument, when I never even mentioned it. I also think your being abit naive when you say money has no value? Of course money has a value. It can help lives and thats a value to me. So, even if the church does put value into money, which it must because it collecets it for the poor, it realizes that money can do good. You should take all the help you can get.


    So, what was your point of saying this. Are you trying to invalidate the argument by saying this? I dont understand! If so, just becuase your teacher told you this as a kid doenst null the concept.

    Your assuming its not a gift. In my opinion it always a gift! Sure maybe someone put alot of hard work to achieve and maybe they werent the most naturally talented person. But, they were given the gift of chance. Some people never even have that. Some people get into car accidents or are born into third world contries and dont even get the chance. Whether one chooses to use there ability or not will have to be decided on ones own moral ground. I personaly would feel as if I wasted an opportunity if I didnt take it. I feel I can use my talents to do good in the world and I do feel an obligation to use them.


    Once again someone is assuming I am arguing from a religous point of view. Why cant people not assume motive and just listen?

    I very much disagree that this has even anything to do with religion as you made it. You said that my argument implies a giver and a taker and you are right. BUT, I never said who that giver and taker was. Did I! No I didnt! The giver and taker in my mind is the natural way the world works. In order for someone to have alot, it means that some else has to have little. This is the giver and the taker. This is economics. No I dont expect someone to give up all there money and starve. That's ridiculus!!!! I would never even suggest that. But, you have to think that with all that each of us has, it is at someone elses expense.


    Please dont assume someones motive or background. You'll never actually here what the other person is saying. Because you have assumed you already pegged me.
     
  17. Nov 10, 2007 #16
    I think this is a bit cold. By your logic if I saw a man dying of hunger I mind as well not help him because I have no way of knowing whether this would be an ultimate good or not. Because he might end up being Hitler. I think this is crazy! I mean tell me if I got your point wrong? But, I'll go ahead and take my chances with helping others.

    I am not here preaching I'm just saying I feel empathy towards others and I feel morally obligated on my part as one of the lucky.
     
  18. Nov 10, 2007 #17
    I feel very much the same way! I wish maybe I could have stated it as beautifully as you did. Then maybe I would have saved my self alot of typing!
     
  19. Nov 10, 2007 #18

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In fact, you pinpoint exactly my viewpoint on "helping the poor". I don't consider it of any intrinsic utility, apart from the fact that I myself might feel good over it, or that I might impress someone who sees it by doing so (or at least, not to give the impression that I'm an egoist or something which is usually socially unfavorable) ; in other words, I consider that this is mainly done to confort oneself, one's feelings, one's social status, gaining affection, debt, ... from the people you help etc.

    Yes, so that's part of your OWN happiness to do so. In that case, you should. But not because you are morally obliged or something, but just because it makes you feel better. So I'm just saying that the ultimate and in fact only "obligation" you have, is to try to make yourself happy. This can go through "feeling yourself obliged to act according to one or other moral guideline" if that's the way you think you should be happy, but this is nothing else but a means to be happy yourself. So if you feel obliged to help others, and if handling that way makes you happy, and not doing so makes you feel bad, then you should do so.

    We, as social animals, have developped such feelings (care for the others) because it helps us make mutually beneficial agreements (such as setting up a society). There needs to be some drive that motivates others to "give and take", because otherwise a mutually beneficial agreement is not possible (you'd never give first, because you'd not expect anything back). So there has, deep in our feelings, evolved some kind of "desire to help others" which gives satisfaction (and hence proper direct benefit, namely a good sensation). You can just as well use that property, and give yourself some good time by helping others. But in no way it is a "moral obligation".
     
  20. Nov 10, 2007 #19
    So then in your Theory, moral obligation does not even exist then? Only a obligation to ones self?
     
  21. Nov 10, 2007 #20

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is no room for temperature in reason! :biggrin:
     
  22. Nov 10, 2007 #21

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That makes sense to me. I think most of what people call "morals" are really just those things that they think help secure their place in society...whatever will set in place an arrangement where they stand to benefit from reciprocation. Most of charity is really based on this, the expectation that if you donate to those in need while you have excess, then if you should find yourself in need, others will donate to you, perhaps even those you helped out and now are the ones with excess. This is why people cannot agree upon what constitutes morality or morals or moral behavior, because everyone has their own personal needs in mind.
     
  23. Nov 10, 2007 #22
    Well, I cant say agree with this. If soemone talks about all there good they do then yes they stand to benefit from society. But, most people keep there charity quiet. So, why is this? Is it purely a self indulgence? Sure people feel good for doing good things. But, what about self sacrifice this doenst really fall into any category. They gain no bebefit except maybe post-mortem. But, was that worth it? I dont believe people are purley selfish animals as you believe.
     
  24. Nov 11, 2007 #23

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Personal satisfaction, looking at themselves and finding themselves great. You know, like reading a good book in a corner. As I said, I think we have a natural drive to behave that way, because we are social animals. Mutual benefit has evolved as a successful strategy, and hence there's a minimum drive needed. I guess it is this deep appeal from nature inside us which we call somehow morality. Maybe "doing good" is a natural urge in us, in the same way as we have a sex drive, or a drive to eat.

    Hey, I also help people, and I sometimes even feel good about it :smile: So I do this essentially for my own "good feeling". And then we've distilled rules from that, which we now take as "The Law" (or morality) and we've learned to feel bad if we sin against it.

    Well, there is a rational way of doing self-sacrifice: the projection that life afterwards without having done it, will be anyway so terrible that one prefers to be dead. The idea that you will have to walk the street, socially recognized as a coward, might be so unbearable, that you prefer to end in bravado.

    And then of course you might be so blinded by the rules you've set up for yourself that you're convinced that it is the right thing to do. Not everybody behaves rationally. Far from it !
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2007
  25. Nov 11, 2007 #24

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Funny, I usually help others because they need help. Helping others is a choice - it is a choice as to the kind of person that you want to be. Are you selfish and think only of yourself, or do you chose to try help other people when you can. In turn, the sum of the choices that we make determine what the world will be. So in the deepest but most practical sense, giving can be considered a philosophy for global peace and prosperity.

    If no one needed help, I wouldn't give away my time or money just to feel good.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2007
  26. Nov 11, 2007 #25
    Ivan, that help you give others also makes you feel good about yourself. In that respect, you're doing what makes you happy as well. There's nothing wrong or selfish about that. It just shows your helpful character as a person, and that's a good thing. Helping others should make people feel good.

    As to the original question:

    Suppose you're able to do a job better than everyone else, but you're not happy with that job. Suppose someone else is able to do the job well enough, but not as well as you, but they're happy doing that job. Should you make yourself and that other person unhappy because you're better at it than they are? What good is a society that has lots of unhappy people doing jobs they don't like just because they're better at it than anyone else? Wouldn't it be better to have a society that has happy people doing jobs they're able to do well enough?

    Spider-Man is the only person in the comics world that can do the things he can do; therefore, he has the responsibility to do things that only he can do, because with that power comes proportional responsibility. But if there were hundreds of people with his abilities, he'd be able to work with them in shifts, the same way that all the other jobs in the world are done. Hells; he may even decide to become a teacher, if he's effective and happier at that and there's others that can fill the super-heroing role effectively enough. And he'd still be helping people, only on an educational level.

    Ants have specific roles. But ants cannot re-purpose themselves like humans can. We can learn a new skill; ants can't grow different mandibles to change from soldier ants to nursery ants. People change jobs often. Sometimes they're happier. Sometimes, they learn a new skill because they don't like the job they just got.

    The point I'm making here is that people don't have to be the best in the world at something just to do that thing. They simply have to be good enough to be effective.

    That might not be the best answer to this question, but it's good enough for me.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2007
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook