Topics Ethics

Question I have an equal opportunity to do 2 jobs, and must choose between them, and can only choose 1. The first job would help other people and help humanity to some degree but I would enjoy it far less though I have the aptitude and qualifications for it. The second, which I have slightly less aptitude and qualifications for (I would have to go through a period of training), is purely creative and would not directly help anyone. But I would love it far more. Do I have a duty to choose one over the other?

Accepted:
May 15, 2013

Comments

There are some ethical views that would say you have a duty here. A ham-fisted version of Utilitarianism, for example, might say that you should figure out if taking the job you don't prefer would do more good overall. If so, this crude doctrine would continue, you should take that job all the same. *

This is not very plausible.

For one thing, the maxim asks us to calculate the incalculable. You might take the job you want less and end up burnt out only to leave it early. And since there are many ways of doing good, most of them outside the workplace, you might end up doing more good against the backdrop of a job that you love. You don't know how things will turn out.

More to the point: we're obliged not to do harm when we can avoid it, and it's reasonable to think we're obliged to do some positive good, but beyond that, a good deal is up for grabs. I know of no good argument against picking the livelihood we'd like, within the bounds of decency and reason, and I'd be mightily skeptical of someone who thought they had one.

There are theoretical views that fit with what I'm suggesting: Kant's understanding of the difference between perfect and imperfect duties, for example, suggests that you have no duty to choose one of these options rather than the other. But even though this may be a point in Kant's favor, we don't need Kant—nor any philosophical theory—to tell us that it's so.

--

* Please note: I'm not saying all versions of utilitarianism are crude. But I am looking askance at the idea that arguments can settle our "duties" in the kind of case you've offered.