
Do we have a moral obligation to society? - bkanber
http://burakkanber.com/blog/do-we-have-a-moral-obligation-to-society/
======
rayiner
On a slightly related note, the hurricane really reinforced my understanding
of the fact we do have a moral obligation to society, whether or not that
requires us to pursue particular career paths.

Trains, water, and electricity being down in New Work had a staggering
economic cost. We're talking about billions of dollars per day. As people
couldn't get to work, it became painfully apparent how much the top of the
pyramid depends on the bottom. Bankers making $5m a year couldn't get work
done because support staff making $50k a year weren't there. The city is an
organism. It's a machine. It's an engine for creating wealth, and like any
structured thing it has differentiable pieces that are ultimately completely
interdependent.

When I was younger, I used to have a moral and political framework based on
the economic model of the farmer. A farmer who farms for his own subsistence
has little moral obligation to society. He plants his seeds, he tends them, he
reaps them. Society loosely protects him from other societies, but that's
about his only link to his fellow man.

Yet, we're not a nation of farmers. Division of labor has allowed us to create
tremendous wealth, but has also made it so nobody is useful without thousands
of other people to do everything else. The subsistance farmer's productivity
doesn't change at all if all the farms around him are flooded. A New York
businessman's productivity goes to zero if the homes of his workers and
customers are flooded. He is no more valuable, disconnected from the powerful
economic engine that is New York City, than a peasant farmer in Bangladesh.

As I have gotten older, I have grappled with a moral philosophy that accepts
our position as elements of these tremendous economic engines. I don't think
such a moral philosophy requires eschewing individual liberty. Indeed,
individual liberty becomes more important in the context of an industrial
economy where everyone is forced to interact with each other. Yet I've become
convinced that there is no moral philosophy that eschews an obligation to the
other elements of the economic engine that is compatible with the realities of
that economic structure. I think it's foolish to apply philosophies rooted in
the idea of independent subsistence farmers to a world that looks nothing like
that.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I'm curious - you are correct that the top of the pyramid worked from home
because the middle [1] of the pyramid was unable to clean up the office.

But what I don't understand is, what moral obligation does this create? Who is
obligated to who, and why? Specifically, what transactions create a moral
obligation beyond fulfilling the terms of the transaction?

[1] The bottom of the pyramid is comprised primarily of non-workers. The $50k
support staff are solidly in the middle.

~~~
rayiner
I will note you used the term "transaction" rather than "interaction." A
"transaction" is of course not something that exists in the state of nature.
What exists are interactions. E.g. one animal killing and eating another
animal. But a "transaction" is an interaction with the additional quality that
it is defined relative to some legal framework. A "transaction" has no meaning
without reference to a legal framework or the collective threat of force
underlying that legal framework. And that legal framework is, of course, a
completely arbitrary social construction.

Thus, it is not the transaction that creates the moral obligation. It is the
imposition of the legal framework without which transactions would be merely
interactions. That legal framework requires everyone to give up the only thing
that can be called a "natural right"--the right to kill and eat whatever
cross's one's path. The whole collectively sacrifices it's natural liberty in
order to construct a structured society that enables wealth creation. It is
that collective sacrifice that creates the collective moral obligation.

I'll give you a very concrete example. We make "conversion" a crime. That is
basically using property for your own benefit that is in your possession by
the voluntary action of another, but does not "belong" to you. Of course,
"ownership" in any sense beyond physical possession is the product of a set of
legal contrivances. Activity like embezzlement, etc, didn't actually used to
be illegal until relatively recently. "Theft" was defined narrowly to taking
from someone's physical possession. But we can't really have a modern economy
without lower-level people taking physical possession of property that
"belongs" to someone else. The truck driver, the parking garage attendant, the
cashier, etc. So we alter the legal system to prohibit this certain activity
presumably to increase the output of the economic engine. So when you leave
your car with a parking garage attendant, you enter into a "transaction" for
him to take care of your car, but that "transaction" is obviously meaningless
without reference to the legal framework that's in place. And that legal
framework involves people giving up the ability to do things they used to be
able to do. And that creates the moral obligation.

Approaching the situation from another angle: your reverence for the
"transaction" blinds you to the fact that they are nothing more than arbitrary
accounting mechanisms within our arbitrary legal framework. At the physical
level, the output of the economic engine of a city is the product of
everyone's effort. Like a real engine, nothing goes if the fuel pump doesn't
pump the gas, the cylinders don't compress the gas, the spark plug doesn't
ignite the gas, the valves don't flush out waste products, etc. The fuel pump
may consider itself the most important contributor, because after all there is
one fuel pump and perhaps half a dozen spark plugs and a dozen or more valves,
but the engine does zero work without all its elements. To the extent that
anyone benefits from the output of the economic engine of a modern industrial
city, they have a moral obligation to all the other elements without which
that output wouldn't be possible. The fact that you use accounting mechanisms
you call "transactions" to divvy up the output doesn't mean that those
"transactions" are the things with real meaning at the physical level.

~~~
lotharbot
You haven't detailed what you mean by "obligation".

Specifically:

\- What is the obligation? What we deem most beneficial, what society deems
most beneficial, what society deems most monetarily valuable, what prolongs
the most lives?

\- To whom is the obligation due? Those living under the same legal framework
as us (at the local, state, or federal level), those living in nations with
compatible frameworks, or all of humanity? Do people from the future count,
and if so, is improving a life 50 years from now equal to improving a life
today?

\- Who, specifically, has this obligation? Is it only those who have benefited
the most from society, or those who have benefited more than they have given
up, or every member of society? Is the obligation limited to able-bodied
adults, or does it include children and the handicapped?

\- How far does this obligation go? Is there a way to fulfill it and be
released from future obligation (say, through adequate military service or
charitable giving)? Does the obligation to one society remain even if one
moves to a different society?

If the existence of collective sacrifice via legal frameworks is what creates
obligation to society, the answers to the above questions should follow from
there. I'm having a hard time seeing how you think they do.

------
Symbol
I was going to write something fairly audacious and start dragging in the
history of Western philosophy, but instead I'll just focus on what I see as
the flawed foundation of your argument: fairness.

I'll argue that fairness is not really an intrinsic understanding we all share
but instead is a concensus. You could argue that it's not fair that some
people are blind, but that you'd find few sighted people willing to put out
their eyes. Fairness is a relatively fluid concept and it doesn't make sense
to try and anticipate how "fair" your actions are.

The way out of this dilemma is avoiding following this line of thought all the
way to first-world guilt. So in your case, you have skills and talents you
know you are applying and skills an talents you know are idle. You also likely
have talents yet untapped. It is a waste of your energy to worry about this.

Do the best thing you can that intersects with the things you are most
interested in. Group concensus in the forms of laws, ethics, an morals should
be consulted but not necessarily blindly followed.

Do good, and do it well.

~~~
zerostar07
There is research showing that fairness may be innate in humans
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193506/Humans-
innat...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193506/Humans-innate-sense-
fairness-means-wed-short-changed-say-scientists.html)

~~~
cead_ite
If such an innate (genetic) tendency towards fairness existed in humans, it
would likely have quite a spectrum of phenotypic expressions. I.e., even if
everyone had a sense of fairness, odds are that such a sense would not be
exactly the same for each individual.

~~~
kappaloris
also, I don't think fairness would be a winning evolutionary strategy.

~~~
dasil003
Why not? It's classic game theory. Mostly fair plus a handful of assholes is
very strong evolutionary strategy.

~~~
kappaloris
yes, but I believe we are using different interpretations fairness. as someone
already pointed out, for fairness to be innate to humans it would need to be a
better genetic trait compared to unfairness. so we are not arguing about how
and if it is a good behavioural strategy, as it needs to be a better gene to
have vs 'the-unfairness-gene'. so you might be genetically unfair and act fair
as long as it is a valid behavioural strategy and revert to your genetic
inclination when the situation requires you to (in case of serious danger for
example). based on that it would be also possible to say that people are
genetically fair and act unfair when in need, but that would not be fairness
in my opinion.

------
kens
The beginning of the article describes how the author would pay much more than
$6 for $6 worth of electricity. This is called consumer surplus, and is the
principle that people usually pay less for something than the maximum price
they are willing to pay, because they are paying the market price (to
oversimplify slightly).

This principle is relevant to Hacker News, because I've often seen statements
that the value of something is exactly what people are paying for it. Taking
consumer surplus into account, what people pay is an upper bound since they
may be getting much more value than they are paying. People won't pay more for
something than it's worth to them, but they may be paying less. (As a startup-
related aside, one reason to have different pricing tiers is to collect as
much of the consumer surplus as possible, by charging more to people who will
pay more. Coupons and discounts are another way.)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus>

------
reasonattlm
One of the many problems in considering yourself morally obliged is that any
finite present obligation is a step onto a conveyor belt that leads to
(countably) infinite obligation. If you're being logical, that is, as opposed
to drawing random lines in the sand.

Obligation to those alive now leads to obligation to their future well-being.
That in turn leads to obligation to those not yet alive. That in turn leads to
obligation to all future sentience: you are obliged to ensure their existence
as best you can, and that is is good. The weight of their existence, trillions
of entities even in just the next millenium, is of such value compared to your
miserable life that you can do nothing but beggar yourself to achieve the
merest sliver of an outcome that would aid them.

If you are obliged to anyone then you are also obliged to the (countably)
infinite future, by the very same arguments. When you draw lines and say "no
more" then it becomes the case that you are only pretending to be obliged -
you do this for yourself, a way to satisfy your own irrational desires to some
threshold. You don't really care about anyone else, it's all about your own
needs.

I'm given to think that moral discussions, like mathematics and physics, you
pay attention to the infinities because that is how you know where the limits
of your process/theory/axioms/system of thought lie.

~~~
joshtynjala
By making yourself infinitely obliged to the future, you also put pressure on
those who follow you to be infinitely obliged to their future. If you're
turning yourself into a beggar in order to meet your obligation, aren't they
expected to do the same? Their well-being is negatively impacted by your
inability to accept a finite obligation.

------
ryanwaggoner
_"Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come
alive and then go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have
come alive."_

\- Howard Thurman

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Thurman>

------
maxharris
What is a moral obligation, and what is it for?

I say that the purpose of morality is to guide your own life so that it is the
best, longest life that it can be.

Properly, "society" is a nothing more (or less) than a concept formed by an
individual mind to grasp that there are individuals that live in geographical
and/or communicative proximity to one another and that deal with each other,
somehow. (Everyone alive that meets that criteria, no matter what choices
they've made in life, no matter what the impact of those choices is on you,
qualifies.) That's it - a society doesn't think, feel, act, etc. It's not an
actual entity with the capacity to do those things.

Your only true moral obligation is to your own life, and to the values that
such a life requires. In terms of the original question about society, your
moral obligation is to those individuals that, in your independent jugement,
benefit your life and values.

If you do the difficult, rational work to figure out what are the things and
people you truly care about, and pursue those values relentlessly, your
actions will not conflict with what they would see is good for them if they
did the same.

------
zerostar07
If you don't do what you love you won't be good at it, hence you are reducing
your contribution to society. Of course we have a moral obligation to others
because we are social animals, but that doesn't mean that the only way to help
is doing humanitarian work.

What's generally morally condemnable is being lazy, not contributing.

~~~
goldfeld
Besides, regarding his citation of Musk, that guy (and his team to boot) is
only doing it because he is really passionate about it. Being something
extremely relevant to human progress that no other private company is doing to
that extent might help fuel the passion, but could not for the love of him
trigger it had he not loved the field.

------
sageikosa
No. Slavery isn't an obligation, it is a blight. Doesn't matter if its to one
man, a nation, nor the sum collective of human existence.

Society can sanction you if you violate its rules, so ensuring the society in
which you find yourself is a just society is an obligation to your own
continued existence.

~~~
potatolicious
Only on HN can you see the concept of "doing good for your fellow man" be
described with a ridiculous weasel word like "slavery".

This is Ayn Rand style rhetoric that is thoroughly lacking in content and
subsists entirely on individualistic outrage. The issue of society vs.
individual freedoms is a valuable one, going off the deep end with weasel
words does not contribute to the discussion.

~~~
javert
_This is Ayn Rand style rhetoric that is thoroughly lacking in content and
subsists entirely on individualistic outrage_

Nobody who has seriously looked into Rand's fiction and nonfiction could say
something like that. Either you've only looked into Rand superficially, or you
are just parroting what you've heard elsewhere. There is immense intellectual
depth in her work.

I don't see why liberals allow conservatives to monopolize Rand (in their
half-assed hypocritical way). Rand makes bulletproof arguments for the rights
of women and gays, against racism, and against the corporate-government
cronyism liberals are railing against today.

She is a _classical_ liberal, not a _postmodern_ liberal, but today's
postmodern liberals would do well to return to their roots. By doing so,
they'd pull in lots of Republican voters and stomp the Republicans.

~~~
potatolicious
That wasn't a reference to the entire body of her work, nor a comment on her
other social views. It was a reference to her views re: self-interest,
altruism, and society as an oppressive instrument.

The "rhetoric" part is a slightly snarky reference to how said views are
presented.

This isn't about women, gays, or blacks - this is about the fundamental notion
of whether or not society should encourage altruistic behavior and whether or
not the individual has some obligation to a very basic level of altruism. This
is a valuable topic that we will probably never agree on, but flying off the
handle and calling it "slavery" cheapens the discourse, because the two are so
far apart that there is no reason to compare them except for cheap emotional
impact.

~~~
javert
_That wasn't a reference to the entire body of her work_

If you use "Ayn Rand style rhetoric" to argue against taking someone's
argument seriously, you are discounting Rand and her entire body of work, and
you're doing it in a backhanded way.

 _It was a reference to her views re: self-interest, altruism, and society as
an oppressive instrument._

Well, she held that society is a marvelous thing and that we're all _much_
better for it. Just want to make sure you realized this. In fact, she makes
the strongest philosophical argument for this that I've ever seen.

 _calling it "slavery" cheapens the discourse_

No, the person who called it "slavery" was right on par. If the individual has
"obligations" to society, he is coerced to serve society.

Yes, there is a question of degree. But we're not talking about 1% of an
individual's effort being forcibly taken to serve others. We're talking, what,
30, 40, 50%? In France, it's 75% for some people now.

Plus, free speech and just conducting business are becoming highly regulated,
which means highly non-free.

Society is great, but not a society like that. Which is why some of Ayn Rand's
heros "shrugged" and decided to stop contributing.

------
brownbat
If there's a salary difference, take the higher paying job, and donate the
excess to a foundation who employs people to work on the humanitarian issue
you're most passionate about.

That way, society gets the benefit of both your skills and your passion.

------
startupfounder
"...but if anyone wants to buy my company for a few hundred million (it’s
worth it!) then I promise I’ll follow in Elon Musk’s footsteps and focus on
the rest of you."

I honestly don't know how to take this.

~~~
bkanber
How do you mean? I hope I haven't offended you.

~~~
startupfounder
First off I am in Brooklyn and I am experiencing the daily realities of a post
Sandy city in recovery.

The genius of Elon Musk is that he is not choosing between being a multi-
millionaire and focusing on bettering humanity (focusing on the rest of us, as
you said). He is not motivated by being a millionaire or billionaire (as it
seems like you are). His wealth is a direct result of providing value to
society, that is how capitalism works, the more value you create for humanity
the more wealth you create for yourself and others.

Musk was on the verge of loosing everything, his wife, his 3rd rocket and
Tesla due to accounting errors. But his desire to do great things for humanity
pushed him past all of these hurdles that would stop most which now make him
look like a hero.

I think you are going about it the wrong way, it seems like you think that by
selling your company for "hundres of millions" will make you happy. It seems
like only when you are on your high horse of being a multi-millionaire that
you will look down upon and help the rest of us.

Bullshit!

Why can't you crate value for humanity in a meaningful way through building
software that is solving a big problem and creating wealth for you and
society? I think you are selling yourself way short by only focusing on trying
to sell your software company that is not solving a big enough problem. If it
was solving a big problem you wouldn't have written this blog post! You are
torn because it is not solving a big enough problem.

This is the problem with the startup culture today, you are the epitome of it!
Your last statement is what is wrong with Silicon Vally today:

"...but if anyone wants to buy my company for a few hundred million (it’s
worth it!) then I promise I’ll follow in Elon Musk’s footsteps and focus on
the rest of you."

That is the worst IF THEN statement!

IF millionaire, THEN rest of you...

How about, IF I help solve huge problems for humanity THEN I will both be
fulfilled in life and as a bonus could be a multi-millionaire or billionaire.

~~~
bkanber
Ah, sorry dude, but you've got me wrong. What I said was just a humorous quip
at the end of a blog post, and simply does not represent the whole truth.
Please take it as a joke, it certainly was meant as such. Hope you're well in
Brooklyn; I'm in SI. Rough out here.

------
InclinedPlane
Obligation? No, not as such. And falling victim to those ideas is hugely
dangerous. The idea that we are not or should not be our own masters, that we
should dedicate ourselves to service to our communities and so forth is an
entrancing idea, but it is mistaken. Wanting to give back to your community is
good, and noble, but being obligated to do so is a recipe for tragedy.

In the end it comes around to the same old thing: the institutionalization of
morality. Which inevitably leads to obligatory orthodoxy. It's important that
people have differing opinions in society, even down to ideas on morality.
It's also important, so we have learned, that the strict obligation of society
be limited to just those things which are strictly necessary to enable society
to operate.

There was a time not long ago when being a member of a specific state religion
was mandatory, and enforced. It was a time of oppression and orthodoxy where
free-thinking and individual liberty were limited, and progress was stunted.
There have been more recent times where similar institutionalized, obligatory
morality has gained traction (under various ideological banners) and those too
were times of oppression, orthodoxy, suffering, and stunted progress. It
doesn't work. Obligation-to-society is merely the first brick to be used to
pave the road of good intentions that leads from individual liberty to rule
and oppression.

Societies were individuals express their feelings of community spirit and care
through spontaneous and personal gifts of time, money, and effort are healthy.
Societies where a moral obligation to society is strictly enforced are
regressive and tragic.

~~~
jt2190

      > In the end it comes around to the same old thing: 
      > the institutionalization of morality
    

Can you elaborate? At no point did the article make the leap that a moral
obligation be forced on individuals by an outside body. From the article:

    
    
      > I have the skills to help other people out but instead 
      > I’m running a startup and writing on my blog. Should I
      > feel guilty? Do I have a moral obligation to use my
      > engineering skills to give back to the world 
      > in a bigger way?
    

How is this kind of self-examination "hugely dangerous"?

------
hollerith
I do not have a comment on whether an obligation exists.

I do however want to point out one personal benefit to pursuing a
philanthropic career: your coworkers will tend to be more caring than non-
philanthropic co-workers are.

Remember Joel Spolsky's short summary of what makes a good employee -- "smart
and gets things done"? Well, "smart, gets things done and cares enough about
other people to make helping them an important part of his or her career" is
even better.

------
JacksonGariety
I was just thinking about this the other day when I saw a clip of "Here Comes
Honey Boo-Boo" in a YouTube video. The family is white trash, they aren't very
educated, and they don't care. They sleep well at night by saying they're
happy just the way they are. Under this logic, nothing would get done. Humans
would we drawing pictures with sticks in the mud.

The real question is, what's so bad about that if we're all pretty happy?

~~~
zerostar07
Happiness is not the only ingredient for a good life.

~~~
zeeed
can you cite more?

~~~
zerostar07
Moral philosophy is a vast field. I suggest Landau's 'Fundamentals of ethics'

------
commieneko
The world isn't ruled by ideology or simple formulas. It's all details and
proportion; with the best solutions usually emergent and as specialized as the
problems.

If you have a marvelous idea or insight into how electric cars could or should
be made, and it's an insight that could make a real difference, then you might
very well feel that you "owe" it to society to get in there and make that
difference. If you would be just another foot soldier in an army of engineers
that seems to be pushing a rope, then stick with what you love.

You do owe an obligation to society, but _also_ have an obligation to
yourself, and your family if you have one. Making the call is up to you, and
not something that a simple formula or ideological precept can provide.

------
j45
Our personal answer to this ties to our sense of humanity and how humane we
are in the practicing of our humanity.

This question becomes less and less of an issue the more and more we take just
one minute to turn a stranger into a person. Strangers can be overlooked,
discounted, marginalized, ridiculed, brushed off, trivialized, dehumanized, or
worse. It's harder to do with people.

If we value society, we have our part in it, and our response for our own
backyard. Everything and everyone's well being is connected ultimately.

------
sethbannon
Yes you should enjoy what you do. Yes you should do what you're good at. And
yes you should do something for the greater good. These days, with the rise of
impact entrepreneurship, there are an abundance of opportunities to solve
interesting technical challenges, make a ton of money, and do a heap of good
for those less fortunate all at once. In my opinion there is no excuse not to.

------
pfortuny
You are not morally obliged to 'do something which costs me more and I
dislike' just because you think 'you will help society more'.

You help society most by making your life as full as possible and in most
cases that is related to how much you enjoy your job.

Not everybody is morally obliged to become a missionary: otherwise, there
would be no 'missions' (all of us would be in the Third World preaching...).

------
preichen
It's scary how similar your story is to mine. I'm a Mechanical Engineer too
(Master's), but am now the co-founder of a local-search iPhone app... I come
originally from Mexico and wonder sometimes if I shouldn't be in Mexico,
solving "real" problems...

------
room271
What a nonsense title. Of course we have a moral obligation to society, where
society means the people around us. This doesn't necessarily mean our choice
of profession though. Although this can be a great way to help/serve others.

------
tomjen3
No. Absolutely, unconditionally, unarguably not. Down that road lies the work
camps of the Stalinist Russia and the action T4 Euthanasia program of Nazi
Germany and the research of the Cold Harbor laboritory.

Down that road lies death, destruction and our collective doom.

~~~
Karunamon
I'm not sure the Godwin was necessary or appreciated, but would you mind
elaborating a bit?

