Will God punish me for not realizing my potential? Is the greatest sin to let the gifts of God rot? Or do I have delusions of grandeur
Potential :
Anonymous :
37 days ago :
No.10658
>>10680
>>10658 (OP)
Rawlsian liberalism is the most convincing answer I've found, although it mostly bypasses God.
You did not choose to be born with a set amount of potential or intellectual capabilities; by virtue of the randomness of the type of world we're brough into, some people, such as yourself, are more advantaged than others. You should, however, make the most out of the natural talents you've been given. This insofar as the benefits you receive (wealth, political change, etc.) help those who were not as fortunate and therefore did not enjoy the same endowments or circumstances which lead you to realize that potential.
I'd even go as far to say that you have the moral duty to do this. We, unlike other creatures, were given the capacity to reason. You should use this capacity to govern yourself by a law which you impose on yourself because you find it just. Otherwise, if you're just acting upon your desires and instincts, you're no different than any other animal; you don't really have any free will to speak of.
What law is just? Well, this is the best case I can make: you, like myself, and everyone else on Earth, have not chosen our lives. We are an amalgamation of circumstances. People debate over the importance of nature or nurture. I think it's somewhat moot since both nature and nurture are equally arbitrary: whether you inherit a high level of intelligence or whether you are born into a caring, loving, fostering family are equally morally arbitrary. These circumstances map almost precisely to future success. It's been widely studied.
Therefore, in a sense, we deserve nothin; moral desert does not exist, nor does meritocracy. I am not successful academically nor financially by my own doing, given that I did not choose the circumstances that led me to that success. You should
a) be eternally grateful that:
- you have been endowed with x, y and z positive characteristics
- you were born into a time and place in which these characteristics are more valuable than the median
- you are able to enjoy luxuries as a result of lucking out
b) do everything in your power to help those less fortunate than you, not because you want to feel good about yourself, but because you have a moral duty to do so. This moral duty arises from your recognizing that none of your success is of your own doing. If we view other humans as ends in themselves rather than means to an end, it's only fair that we try and redistribute the lucky hand we've been given.
As for where God fits into the picture, I don't know. I'm sure there's a Bible passage or parable about it, though.
Squandering good fortune is a pretty grave sin. Read the parable of the talents (whether or not you’re Christian). If you were born smart, or rich, or handsome, or charismatic, you are very lucky. Maybe a higher power made it so, maybe it’s just a roll of the dice. In either case, you should practice gratitude and work hard to avoid squandering it.
Thank you, good reading
Anonymous :
36 days ago :
No.10674
>>10681
>>10674
I agree. You can't measure good will based on consequences if those consequences are contingent (as they always are). Intent and motive are a better measure.
>>10683
I like to think if there's any sort of god or godlike power out there they judge more on intent than outcome
don't know about god but your brain will haunt you with what could've been
Anonymous :
35 days ago :
No.10680
>>10682
>>10680
Good post anon. I didn't know that this was what Rawls thought but it's basically the position I've arrived at myself.
>>10684>>10680
This is more Peter Singer than Rawls
>>10658 (OP)
Rawlsian liberalism is the most convincing answer I've found, although it mostly bypasses God.
You did not choose to be born with a set amount of potential or intellectual capabilities; by virtue of the randomness of the type of world we're brough into, some people, such as yourself, are more advantaged than others. You should, however, make the most out of the natural talents you've been given. This insofar as the benefits you receive (wealth, political change, etc.) help those who were not as fortunate and therefore did not enjoy the same endowments or circumstances which lead you to realize that potential.
I'd even go as far to say that you have the moral duty to do this. We, unlike other creatures, were given the capacity to reason. You should use this capacity to govern yourself by a law which you impose on yourself because you find it just. Otherwise, if you're just acting upon your desires and instincts, you're no different than any other animal; you don't really have any free will to speak of.
What law is just? Well, this is the best case I can make: you, like myself, and everyone else on Earth, have not chosen our lives. We are an amalgamation of circumstances. People debate over the importance of nature or nurture. I think it's somewhat moot since both nature and nurture are equally arbitrary: whether you inherit a high level of intelligence or whether you are born into a caring, loving, fostering family are equally morally arbitrary. These circumstances map almost precisely to future success. It's been widely studied.
Therefore, in a sense, we deserve nothin; moral desert does not exist, nor does meritocracy. I am not successful academically nor financially by my own doing, given that I did not choose the circumstances that led me to that success. You should
a) be eternally grateful that:
- you have been endowed with x, y and z positive characteristics
- you were born into a time and place in which these characteristics are more valuable than the median
- you are able to enjoy luxuries as a result of lucking out
b) do everything in your power to help those less fortunate than you, not because you want to feel good about yourself, but because you have a moral duty to do so. This moral duty arises from your recognizing that none of your success is of your own doing. If we view other humans as ends in themselves rather than means to an end, it's only fair that we try and redistribute the lucky hand we've been given.
As for where God fits into the picture, I don't know. I'm sure there's a Bible passage or parable about it, though.
>>10674
I like to think if there's any sort of god or godlike power out there they judge more on intent than outcome
I agree. You can't measure good will based on consequences if those consequences are contingent (as they always are). Intent and motive are a better measure.
>>10680
>>10658 (OP)
Rawlsian liberalism is the most convincing answer I've found, although it mostly bypasses God.
You did not choose to be born with a set amount of potential or intellectual capabilities; by virtue of the randomness of the type of world we're brough into, some people, such as yourself, are more advantaged than others. You should, however, make the most out of the natural talents you've been given. This insofar as the benefits you receive (wealth, political change, etc.) help those who were not as fortunate and therefore did not enjoy the same endowments or circumstances which lead you to realize that potential.
I'd even go as far to say that you have the moral duty to do this. We, unlike other creatures, were given the capacity to reason. You should use this capacity to govern yourself by a law which you impose on yourself because you find it just. Otherwise, if you're just acting upon your desires and instincts, you're no different than any other animal; you don't really have any free will to speak of.
What law is just? Well, this is the best case I can make: you, like myself, and everyone else on Earth, have not chosen our lives. We are an amalgamation of circumstances. People debate over the importance of nature or nurture. I think it's somewhat moot since both nature and nurture are equally arbitrary: whether you inherit a high level of intelligence or whether you are born into a caring, loving, fostering family are equally morally arbitrary. These circumstances map almost precisely to future success. It's been widely studied.
Therefore, in a sense, we deserve nothin; moral desert does not exist, nor does meritocracy. I am not successful academically nor financially by my own doing, given that I did not choose the circumstances that led me to that success. You should
a) be eternally grateful that:
- you have been endowed with x, y and z positive characteristics
- you were born into a time and place in which these characteristics are more valuable than the median
- you are able to enjoy luxuries as a result of lucking out
b) do everything in your power to help those less fortunate than you, not because you want to feel good about yourself, but because you have a moral duty to do so. This moral duty arises from your recognizing that none of your success is of your own doing. If we view other humans as ends in themselves rather than means to an end, it's only fair that we try and redistribute the lucky hand we've been given.
As for where God fits into the picture, I don't know. I'm sure there's a Bible passage or parable about it, though.
Good post anon. I didn't know that this was what Rawls thought but it's basically the position I've arrived at myself.
Anonymous :
35 days ago :
No.10683
>>10693
>>10683
Yeah it's not completely binary. Intent is the only pre-requisite to good will. Someone who achieves more with that intent, however, would garner more good will than someone else. This is a little iffy though because then you'd have to argue for free will.
>>10681
>>10674
I agree. You can't measure good will based on consequences if those consequences are contingent (as they always are). Intent and motive are a better measure.
>>10674I like to think if there's any sort of god or godlike power out there they judge more on intent than outcome
I somewhat agree with you two, but acting only upon intent can easily become negligence. I suspect good measured according to intent is a consolation prize because good measured according to actual results is too difficult.
Anonymous :
35 days ago :
No.10684
>>10692
>>10684
I guess "you have a moral duty to help the less advantaged" is more Singerish than Rawls. To be fair (to myself?) there's a pretty good amount of overlap between Singer and the difference principle.
>>10680
>>10658 (OP)
Rawlsian liberalism is the most convincing answer I've found, although it mostly bypasses God.
You did not choose to be born with a set amount of potential or intellectual capabilities; by virtue of the randomness of the type of world we're brough into, some people, such as yourself, are more advantaged than others. You should, however, make the most out of the natural talents you've been given. This insofar as the benefits you receive (wealth, political change, etc.) help those who were not as fortunate and therefore did not enjoy the same endowments or circumstances which lead you to realize that potential.
I'd even go as far to say that you have the moral duty to do this. We, unlike other creatures, were given the capacity to reason. You should use this capacity to govern yourself by a law which you impose on yourself because you find it just. Otherwise, if you're just acting upon your desires and instincts, you're no different than any other animal; you don't really have any free will to speak of.
What law is just? Well, this is the best case I can make: you, like myself, and everyone else on Earth, have not chosen our lives. We are an amalgamation of circumstances. People debate over the importance of nature or nurture. I think it's somewhat moot since both nature and nurture are equally arbitrary: whether you inherit a high level of intelligence or whether you are born into a caring, loving, fostering family are equally morally arbitrary. These circumstances map almost precisely to future success. It's been widely studied.
Therefore, in a sense, we deserve nothin; moral desert does not exist, nor does meritocracy. I am not successful academically nor financially by my own doing, given that I did not choose the circumstances that led me to that success. You should
a) be eternally grateful that:
- you have been endowed with x, y and z positive characteristics
- you were born into a time and place in which these characteristics are more valuable than the median
- you are able to enjoy luxuries as a result of lucking out
b) do everything in your power to help those less fortunate than you, not because you want to feel good about yourself, but because you have a moral duty to do so. This moral duty arises from your recognizing that none of your success is of your own doing. If we view other humans as ends in themselves rather than means to an end, it's only fair that we try and redistribute the lucky hand we've been given.
As for where God fits into the picture, I don't know. I'm sure there's a Bible passage or parable about it, though.
This is more Peter Singer than Rawls
>>10683
Yeah it's not completely binary. Intent is the only pre-requisite to good will. Someone who achieves more with that intent, however, would garner more good will than someone else. This is a little iffy though because then you'd have to argue for free will.
yes