Do "gifted" people have a moral obligation to work?

No one has a moral obligation to live their life like their parent's want them to.
 
Gaaah. Just gaaaaah.

I happen to agree that children are the most important thing in life - for those who have them. That's why I support tax breaks for parents, work accommodations for parents, etc. But telling people who are mature enough to realize they don't want kids that they "ought" to have them....gaaaah.

Amethyst

DH and I have the resources and aptitude to be good parents. Some folks use this as a kind of cudgel to beat us with. "You're being selfish." "You are turning your back on the most important thing in life...."
 
Parallel questions:

- If you are especially fertile do you have a 'moral obligation' to have children?
- If you are butt ugly do you have a moral obligation to stay out of public view?

And, if you are both...well, you have a quandary! :D
 
The background: In recent conversations with my father, he's expressed the position that someone who is "gifted" or might have higher aptitude for success, has some what of a moral obligation to do a job that is deemed more worthwhile, or more important.

Deemed more important by who and by what criteria?

Financially, sure I'm way below my potential and as the line goes, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". We could have stayed in the DC area and would now have an income of ~$300k/year and we'd be absolutely miserable.

Neither of us saw any future going down that road.
 
No disrespect to your dad - who obviously loves you - but IMHO, anyone who tells anyone they have a "moral obligation" to do anything is being pompous, and if I were there to hear it, I would bust out laughing.

+1


I think that a requirement of happy early retirement is to quit giving a s**t what other people's expectations are of you.

+1

Now, this sounds like something my Dad would say. In fact, as I think about it, my Dad would probably have said this before retiring.
 
These high level discussions never meant much to me. I guess that's because I really don't have any special gift that someone else couldn't do. I believe that we do have an obligation to take care of ourselves and not be a burden on others if at all possible. That's as far as it goes in my mind.
 
As long as no one retires before acquiring a nest egg that supports a 2.5% WR or lower, it's OK to retire gifted or not. Otherwise, you're obligated to keep working to make sure you won't be a burden to younger taxpayers. :police:
 
Damn! At 3.5%WR, I thought I would be OK.

Alright, alright, I might need my SS when I get older. I think I will not be a burden on the younger generation, because they will just give me the SS portion of the people who do not need it.

Like the ones with 2.5%WR, for example. >:D
 
So, if those with 'greater gifts' should work more, does that mean those others not so fortunate should work less?

I got a lot of that "what a waste" and "you could be doing so much" when I first quit, and it really irritated me. It only went away when I pointed out that "I did do so much, but saved it all instead of spending". Good-natured presumption...
 
Investment in education by society is a common good; sometimes it will pay off handsomely, sometimes it will be break even, and sometimes it will be a net financial loss. Overall, society benefits. To compel individuals to decades of service based on this is a form of indentured servitude.

Well said.

DW and I received our tax-payer funded education through college in England and then emigrated 10 years after graduating.

Both our children received 100% Louisiana tax-paid education but after graduating left the State and never paid back a penny in State taxes.
 
In recent conversations with my father, he's expressed the position that someone who is "gifted" or might have higher aptitude for success, has some what of a moral obligation to do a job that is deemed more worthwhile, or more important.

Ah, yes... "With great power comes great responsibility."
 
In any case, the whole preposition that you owe the universe just because you are not dumb and should therefore work ntil death is preposterous.
We're just not gifted enough to understand that logic...
 
The OP's question is impossible to answer without knowing the purpose of life. Without a purpose/goal/approach set by someone smarter than us, there is no yardstick by which to know the "correct" way to live it.
 
REWahoo said:
Parallel questions:

- If you are especially fertile do you have a 'moral obligation' to have children?
- If you are butt ugly do you have a moral obligation to stay out of public view?
- if you are...

OK, I'll stop now.

That is too funny! :)
 
Me too.

But I think it is narrow-minded to assume that paid work is the only way for someone to have a positive impact on the world.

Yeah, this. I can understand why, if someone is making a real, positive impact on society with their work, one might be tempted to think they should keep working even they no longer need to financially. (I'm assuming here that their particular "gift" isn't readily replaceable; otherwise, they might be better off morally letting someone else have the job who needs it more.)

Just the same, we own our own lives, and there are limits to what other people (and society) can reasonably expect us to sacrifice for the "greater good" if it's not what we want to do personally.
 
My friend is gifted in height being over 6 feet tall compared to my 5 feet 9 inches. His two sisters (also tall) insist that as a tall single man he should only date tall women since there are plenty of shorter guys like me for the other women. So, I guess the answer is yes. And, my friend must date long legged, statuesque beauties for the good of society. Poor fellow!
 
Here are the data. Based on gross earnings, assuming hers were average, the subsidy would be equivalent to just over 2 years of full time work.

CIHI - Physician supply increasing twice as quickly as Canadian population

My comments were based on kumquat's statement that, at 55, her total earnings had not exceeded the amount she received as subsidies.

Originally Posted by kumquat
Considering that she has had a subsidy about equal to her earnings, I'd say she has a "moral obligation" to work more.

Perhaps the example that kumquat used was not typical.
 
Last edited:
My friend is gifted in height being over 6 feet tall compared to my 5 feet 9 inches. His two sisters (also tall) insist that as a tall single man he should only date tall women since there are plenty of shorter guys like me for the other women. So, I guess the answer is yes. And, my friend must date long legged, statuesque beauties for the good of society. Poor fellow!
This assumes men have to be taller than the women they pair up with. IMO, this is a stupid social convention which, the sooner we get over it, the better.

(He says, being all of 5' 7.5" and was tired of being rejected by 2/3 of women in his single days based on height alone -- and wound up marrying a woman who is 5' 9" anyway.)
 
I can see both POVs, but I know there's only one acceptable answer here. This is hardly the place to hear both sides, sorta like asking about the second amendment at an NRA meeting. The question really isn't whether or not any of us are irreplaceable (micro), maybe it's more about the what difference the ratio of productive citizens to non-producing citizens has on our economy/financial well-being (macro)...

Yes, it is true that a society where the idle people outnumber the workers will develop some problems. This demographic cliff will haunt nations all around the world soon.

On the other hand, if I continue to work, I would demand to be remunerated. And if my means improve, I would tend to consume more. I am no saint. If I work hard (and to be gifted on top of that!), I would want to be well-paid. And then, I would spend more.

I do not see anything wrong with cutting short my working life, and reducing my expenses to match my curtailed means. If society wants me to work longer, I can be bribed. An increase of 50% of pay will do it. I would work a couple more years.
 
It makes sense for people to marry people the same height. That way you aren't constantly having to readjust the driver's seat.:LOL:

Who were all these dames who actually told you they didn't approve of your height? Did no one ever tell them the polite response to an unwanted offer is "Thanks very much, I'm not interested"? :nonono:

A.

This assumes men have to be taller than the women they pair up with. IMO, this is a stupid social convention which, the sooner we get over it, the better.

(He says, being all of 5' 7.5" and was tired of being rejected by 2/3 of women in his single days based on height alone -- and wound up marrying a woman who is 5' 9" anyway.)
 
Mention of the "moral obligation" of middle-age doc to continue practicing reminded me of study suggesting perhaps 100,000 annually are killed in US alone by medical errors-
Medical errors kill almost 100000 Americans a year
Perhaps MORE docs should ER ;) (where's that sarcasm font?)

But seriously- Just what moral giant (or mental midget) decided one's "worth" or "benefit" to society must only be defined by their j@b title:confused: Many who are ER'ed contribute far more to the common good than some who are still collecting a paycheck for minimal (or negative) productivity.
 
Well I am called "Doctor" and I practice medicine. I consider it a privilege to serve all my patients. I also consider it a privilege to volunteer at free clinics here and abroad. I like to think about these non profit activities as a "moral duty" to help others, but it does not feel like a "moral obligation" that society is imposing on me. Not sure if this makes sense or what.
 
To me, there are far to many working who think they are gifted, but oh well, that makes the workplace all the more amusing:LOL:
 
Gifted? I have found the world kept turning after I quit working. Very few people make a difference in their job. Except in their own mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom