On Duty

We each have a path that is unique unto us. We must respect that uniqueness. We must find our voice, and then inspire others to find their voice. But in trying to inspire others to find their voice, we must take utmost care not to interfere in their path with our own vision. Each person has an orbit that is necessary and unique unto them.

Thus to an artist arrogant enough to impose his worldview upon others a salaryman may seem immoral and disgusting. Why waste your life away with work? So what if you have a family, what is good about family anyway? But then to the salaryman an artist may seem lazy, decadent, disrespectful of family values, social values, corporate values.

This is all limiting.

A good artist is indeed lazy. He needs abundant sensuality. The libertine deliberately shunned family values and social responsibility. So do Buddhist monks and Hindu sadhus. 

A good doctor is on time, responsible, honest, ethical, clean. He must inspire trust.

A good philosopher is self-critical, self-doubting, self-reflecting. His specialty is world-weary humor and wisdom. 

A good entrepreneur is able to shut out self-doubt, yet open to criticism from time to time. He leads an active life and has a high sense of responsibility for others. 

For me, my moral sensitivity has led me from an intense individualistic ethic (I was a budding libertine when I was 20, 21yrs old) to a more relaxed morality. Intensity is good. But intensity also tends to shut out certain aspects of the chaos that I don't want to miss. Any ethical system is just an interpretation of the chaos of existence. In doing so it separates chaos from that which is moral and that which is immoral. Inside and outside. I find great value, a very humanizing value, in relaxing my morals and feel out the chaos with loose boundaries between good and evil. 

Interestingly Markus seems to be like this. He does it well. But somehow I feel safer with you. People on the long run I think trust you, Proteus, more because of your intense convictions. Your integrity will not be compromised so easily when the going gets hard. I'll be interested to see how Markus will act in times of trouble. 

Moral frameworks shift according to individual fitness.
Ethics evolve through social dialogues. 
Moral dilemmas can not be resolved. But we can gain a higher sensitivity to moral issues through conversations.
There are no moral absolutes. Life is open-ended. Chaos is amoral.
Kantian imperative and utilitarianism are just options. Faced with a moral dilemma, the best we can opt for is to meet it with moral sensitivity.
Moral dilemmas provide valuable examples for discussions. Exploring them yields higher moral sensitivity.
No moral absolutes means morality is fragile. But the fragility of the moral life makes it worthwhile to live a moral life.