Ethics

Is there a moral imperative to strive for personal achievement? Said another way: If a genius allows hmself to be underemployed and lazy, is that laziness more of a severe wrong (or waste) than the laziness of an ordinary man?

Comments

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 imperatives" strictly speaking, but plainly laziness is a vice and dedication and productivity would be virtuous. The genius has the capacity to be more virtuous in certain ways than ordinary people, and hence it would be better for her to be productive and worse for her to be lazy, given her added potential for virtue.

Read another response by Nicholas D. Smith

Read another response about Ethics