Petrarchive – Potential

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

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

>>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 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
Good post anon. I didn't know that this was what Rawls thought but it's basically the position I've arrived at myself.

>>10681
>>10674
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.

>>10680

This is more Peter Singer than Rawls

>>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.

>>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

>>10680
Future historians will think Rawlsianism was the last of the Abrahamic religions.

"Think and act as if you could be absolutely anyone."

Most deteriorated version of the western religious and philosophical tradition imaginable.

What is 'you' such that you 'might have been' anyone?

A bizarre and entirely unfounded metaphysical assumption. In philosophy and religion it's called Universalism. In bio-ethnography it's called being a North-West European.

>>11431
>What is 'you' such that you 'might have been' anyone?

Im the sense that all the characteristics that make you you are random; therefore (the argument goes) that there's not really any difference between you and I given that we had no influence on the conditions that usually lead us to differentiate between you and I.

>Most deteriorated version of the western religious and philosophical tradition imaginable.

Why are political philosphy and religion necessarily incompatible? Why is Rawlsianism any inferior to Abrahamic religion?

As for the rest of the post, I don't understand what you are trying to convey. North-West European? What are you on about?

>>10658 (OP)

if you’re young enough to be here, young enough to have found this place - you’ve got time.

potential ain't the only part of equation
and god isn't real