You have no obligation to be useful or interesting to the world.
Conversation
Replying to
Is there rational for this claim? I'm keen to hear the thought process behind it.
1
1
Replying to
Consider animals and plants. My cat doesn’t try to be useful or interesting, though he is often both without intending to. He just kinda exists for himself. Not intentionally selfish, just indifferent to value to others.
2
6
44
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
No, you’re thinking the naturalistic fallacy. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalis
That’s only a slippery slope if you believe things have an “essential” nature. I don’t think they do. That’s why my example was a domestic indoor pet cat. Very far from “natural” catness.
Replying to
But it does sound like you're saying there is no obligation to change things from the way they already are. My cat doesn't know about starving people or malaria. Doesn't that knowledge come with obligation? The Great Uncle Ben once said... :)
1
2
Show replies

