you could, but what if your job is important to society?
and for you not to do it would mean someone less good doing it instead?

and if you want to philophise, if someone is good enough at a job that is important to society as a whole, could you not argue they have a moral obligation to do that job?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:18, archived)

Does the individual have a moral duty to society?
This opens up a whole new can of worms.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:20, archived)

if you're arguing that people shouldn't have unnecessary cars
then that can only be argued from an "individual having an moral obligation to society" point of view. Otherwise, why should anyone give a shit how many cars someone else has?

*passes back can-opener and offers worms*
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:22, archived)

I'm not arguing about what they shouldn't have,
I'm only saying most people don't need them, which was the original point of dispute.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:26, archived)

true.
but that's a bit of a pointless argument, you don't NEED the computer you're typing on right now. Or your dog. Or a cooker. Or clothes. etc.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:28, archived)

Tell us your answer to that first.

( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:22, archived)

I'll have to think about it.

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:28, archived)

No.
Or at least, not in such a way as it involves an obligation to do certain jobs just because they're good at them.
( Comma, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:30, archived)

so, then
if you don't have a moral obligation in your working life to benefit society if you are able -and crucially others aren't able - why should you have a moral obligation to do anything in your life that benefits society?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:35, archived)

I'd like to make an active/passive distinction,
and say that we don't have a moral obligation to do anything, only to refrain from doing certain things.
( Comma, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:48, archived)

I'm sure you're right
only the active/passive boundary is a bit of a fucker to define.*

I don't necessarily believe what I'm arguing here, I just think it's an interesting subject.

*as in, "they came first for the Communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Communist"
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:57, archived)