Wonderful Discussion with my Bro on Moral Responsibility
As always, it is interesting and mind-provoking to talk with my brother. Trevor has always had a wonderful ability to talk with me for hours and hours, to listen, and to engage in civil, logical and open discourse. It is beautiful. Tonight’s discussion has led to a new understanding of a situation (as these conversations often result).
Moral Responsibility
Before I offer my thoughts, it is important to define moral responsibility as analogous to moral justice — meaning performing what you owe to someone (be it yourself or others). It is this notion that you have some duty to help those who have helped you; that you are somehow “responsible” to do such and it is somehow “just” and “fair.”
Conclusion (mine more than his.. but a general consensus I think): We have a moral responsibility to respect ourselves first and foremost. Next, we have a responsibility to those who have helped us. Anything more than this isn’t as much about moral “justice” and “responsibility” as it is pure philanthropy.
I do not believe we have any moral duty to help others, rather it would be very nice if we did. However, without getting paid, this is pure philanthropy. Performing such philanthropy past the point of personal gratification, and without getting paid, is what I call “the purest altruism.” At this state, you have zero incentive to help someone — having no utility whatsoever; even having a negative utility at some points. If you are getting paid, then that’s nice — but it’s not philanthropy. You simply are choosing to perform a task which yields that intrinsic benefit (which can be found outside of this morally gratifying zone), while trading off for a lower wage than you may have otherwise achieved.
On another note:
Money & Culture Driving Us Beyond States of Intrinsic Desensitization at Work
Tonight, I realized how much money drives individuals’ efforts beyond their maximum utility level. For example, a doctor may gain tremendous satisfaction when saving someone’s life – however, such a physician will eventually become desensitized to that utility, and will lose all intrinsic incentives. Having an extrinsic, monetary incentive allows a physician (and any other person) to maintain their practice after such a diminishing utility. In turn, this stimulates further specialization into practices. Eventually, even a monetary reward isn’t enough, and a person retires or changes professions. *Note: Other benefits may also be included in this decision making process. For instance, people often include the culture of their workplace and the people they work with when factoring their decision of whether to leave their profession / industry or not. Ironically enough, I found that working for money at Wachovia with no intrinsic incentive left me rapidly starved for some inner value. Moreover, working on this “nonprofit,” or whatever it is (with intrinsic satisfaction points / incentive), has maintained my work ethic for far longer than working for money (extrinsic benefits). This is a commonly known psychological tendency, as well as an obvious tendency to point out. What is not as obvious is the fact that money, when added to intrinsic benefits, significantly extends your work in a particular field… even past the point of diminishing returns. Moreover, a good culture at work will extend your work at a particular job setting even further. Each of these factors are possible reasons why we have very few polymaths (the “Renaissance Man”) today.
