|
I'm halfway through a book on ethics, which is really full of questions and no answers. One question that now arises: If you have a skill that would improve the world for everyone around you, do you have a moral obligation to practice that skill? Suppose you were an engineer, and you could develop cheaper lithium batteries. Would it be immoral to live in a cave instead of working 40 hours a week toward on that project? 60 hours a week? 80 hours a week?
I believe it would be morally wrong to withhold your skills from society, even if your skills are nothing greater than cashing out people at the grocery store quickly so they can get on with their day. However, if you blindly do what's best for the greater good, chances are nobody will be looking out for your needs. You have to find your own balance between work and play, and between altruism and selfishness.
Suelo (cave-man) is correct that people need challenges in their life. However, it's my uneducated opinion that he would find a more suitable challenge in being an anthropology professor than in foraging for food. IMO, Suelo has the right idea - to be happy with less. But he takes it way too far, and removes himself too far from society. He should find a marketable skill he enjoys, and practice it for money. He should work hard enough to buy himself four walls and some soap, and put fresh meat, rather than roadkill, in his belly.
|
The guy that survives on no money.
Past 
Present 
Future?
