Topics Ethics

Question Does it make any sense to say that a person has an "obligation to develop her gifts/talents to the utmost"?

Accepted:
November 26, 2009

Comments

It seems that there are a couple of ways that it might make sense to claim that someone has 'an obligation to develop her gifts'. Let's suppose that I believe ethical egoism is correct (that each person morally ought to do that which benefits them the most). I might believe that developing your gifts is essential to benefiting yourself the most long term.

Second, a similar argument might be made from a utilitarian viewpoint (the view that morality consists in promoting the most happiness for the most people long term). I might believe that developing your gifts is essential to promoting the most good for the most people long term.

Third, Kant's ethics actually uses an 'obligation to develop gifts' instead of living a life of pleasure as one of his four paradigm examples of moral obligations. I think his argument was that human dignity requires that you treat yourself as something more than a mere means to pleasure (but I haven't reviewed that argument recently).

In any case, there are several ways in which a person might have a moral obligation to self development.

Question Does it make any sense to say that a person has an "obligation to develop her gifts/talents to the utmost"? Accepted:November 26, 2009

Question Does it make any sense to say that a person has an "obligation to develop her gifts/talents to the utmost"?

Accepted:
November 26, 2009