Don’t we all have an obligation, at least, to try and leave the world at least a LITTLE better than we found it? Pick up garbage you see blowing around - be an active member of some social organization - go help the Boy Scouts plant trees, SOMETHING.
We’re put here to at least try to help one another. It’s the price we pay for being here, no?
an seanchai
ghardester You misunderstand me. I am aware of the “law” of unintended consequences. My point is that:
a) Insofar as there is such a “law”, the only formulation of it that most people would agree on is “whatever you do, it’s likely to have some unintended consequences”. This says nothing about whether the unintended consequences are greater than the intended consequences in most or all cases. Since this is a subject that, as far as I’m aware of, has been studied only anecdotally, I don’t think we can assume that as given
b) The “law of unintended consequences” has mostly been put forward in relation to trying to effect widespread social/economic change. You are showing your political biases if you assume that this is what this thread was about. The OP said nothing whatever about HOW you might make the world a better place.
c) You have given no reason why this might apply more to cases where your goal is “improve something in the world” rather than, say, “enrich myself personally”
I’ll repeat my queries from my last post more clearly:
What evidence do you have that unintended consequences will always or usually be greater than intended consequences?
What makes you think that unintended consequences are greater for altruistic acts than for self-centered acts?
we should leave the world better than we found it, as my Nonnie taught me.
It is very sad that that’s not difficult in this day and age.
edit: she taught me that public space belongs to all: we should all look after it. It’s not so hard.
For me, the term “responsibility” implies some kind of punishment if those obligations aren’t met. I’d rather say that it’s in my best interest to live in a world that’s a little better than it is. But of course the term “better” is in the eye of the beholder.
Let’s say A and B both believe they have an obligation to make the world a better place. A thinks the world would be a better place if B were dead, and B thinks the world would be a better place if A were dead.
Where does this leave the idea of some over-arching incorporeal objective obligation to make the world a better place? (Also, note that A or B could be Hitler.)
I know I have a duty to make this world a better place, because I placed that duty on myself.
Robert Heinlein, writing in the guise of Lazarus Long, once said “Do not confuse “duty” with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect.”
Easy - the one that’s Hitler is wrong. 
No. I don’t think anyone has an inherent obligation to make the world better.
I do think people should make the personal choice to make improving the world an obligation upon themselves, though. I guess I’m splitting hairs, but yeah. I do think people should try to make the world a better place, but not because of an external obligating factor.
I was going to say something like this, except less well-put.
Also, while I don’t believe that other people have an obligation to make the world a better place, I would certainly appreciate it if they did.
So I should go around slapping Girl Scouts, right?
Kyla and Electric Sky–you sure about that? Do you want to qualify those statements in any way, perhaps by limiting them to those people who share your ideas about what would make the world better?
I do not believe we have an obligation to make the world better. I do believe we have an obligation not to make the world worse.
No.
Is that a well-meaning action? Re-read what I said. I did not say that purposely harmful actions would yield good results.
The gist of the point I was making lies in the thought of “First, do no harm”.
Since this is the opinion section, and you asked for and recieved mine, I am not sure what the problem is. It disagrees with your opinion and therefor becomes a debate topic.
I’m not going to debate in the opinion section. If you don’t like contrary opinions, throttle back on your poll output.
Why not? Why is it that well-meaning actions inevitably lead to harm, but never the reverse?
Or.
Another take on that is to let them kill each other off and leave the world a better place for those of us who get tired of the Us vs. Them folks who kill the peace for the rest of us. Heh.
OK, so if Hitler is just sitting around thinking that the world would be better if all the Jews were dead, you think he should decide to make the world a better place (which, if he did, would entail him trying to kill all the Jews).
No and yes.
I (singly or as part of society) can not require it of others. I can only hope they feel as I do.
I can and do require it of myself. So it’s a duty to myself to do so.
Yes, that’s exactly what I think.
I think “responsibility” or “obligation” are too strong, but it is a good idea to try (and good for oneself, not just for others or for posterity). People who don’t try, perhaps because they feel they have nothing to contribute, or just don’t care, are not particularly blameworthy,* but they are missing out.
*So long as they are not actively trying to make the world worse, of course, but I rather doubt if anybody really tries to do that.