Your question seems to bring to bear a number of important ethical notions. From what is called a "consequentialist" perspective, in which goodness is understood in terms of consequences, plainly the laziness of a genius will be more consequential than that of an ordinary person. One of the common criticisms of consequentialism is that it seems to mandate or require what is called "supererogation"--going above and beyond the call of duty, since each additional step beyond the call of duty would bring additional value into being. From what is called a deontological perspective, the question would be whether there is any moral duty (or, as you put it, imperative) to use one's natural gifts productively. So is there a "call to duty" involving adequate use of natural gifts? I think probably there would be some such duty, but since we also have the idea that supererogation cannot be required , presumably any such duty would be limited. From a virtue-theoretic standpoint, there are no "moral...

I think some philosophers would argue that there are good reasons not to have children, given population pressures. But I am inclined to take a rather different tack here, by asking you why you seem to suppose that self-interest is the same as the vice of selfishness. One of the things I found extraordinary in my own experience of having children was how much love I found I was capable of having and sharing. Did that bring value to my own life? Most certainly it did! Did it bring value to the lives of others? I think (and hope) so. Did I become a better person, all things considered? I think (and hope) so. And if I am doing a good job with my children (as I hope I am), then everyone with whom they come into contact is potentially better off. Plainly, not all parents are good people, and parenting does not always improve those who do it. But if you desire to have children, I think that is at least one indication that you could do something that is valuable not just for yourself...

Different general approaches to ethics may provide different answers to this question. Speaking very broadly, there have been three basic approaches to ethical theory. Kant (and others like him, called "deontologists") will argue that the correct way to view ethics is by formulating rules that may be applied universally. In this approach, dishonest will always be bad--though in some cases it might be the lesser of two evils. J. S. Mill (and others like him, called "consequentialists" or more narrowly "utilitarians") will approach ethical questions with a view to what consequences will flow from the act in question (or else from the rules they formulate that will tell us how to act). In this approach, lying can sometimes be good because it will have consequences that have greater utility, all things considered, than telling the truth. Aristotle (and others like him, called virtue theorists) will say that the primary bearer of value is the character of the agent, and not the actions the agent performs...