3

Disclaimer: I'm a newbie in Philosophy, and this question is most probably answered somewhere (on this site or not), but I've been looking for a while now and it's a little difficult to steer myself through all the new jargon I keep bumping into, so I thought I might go ahead and ask instead.

So the question is:

Do I have to (/am I obligated to) do anything rather than doing nothing? And is this something universal that we all agree on?

Am I morally obligated to do certain things rather than just exist in my bed all day? Or even from a legal standpoint, am I obligated by the law to do something rather than nothing?

4
  • See sin of omission:"A person may be guilty of a sin of omission if he fails to do something which he is able to do and which he ought to do because he has put himself into a state or situation whereby he is unable to complete the action." Of course, not everybody subscribes to a code of duty or religious ethics, but many secular moralists would condemn "doing nothing" as wasting life as well.
    – Conifold
    Mar 5, 2020 at 21:02
  • ‘The sole cause of man’s unhappiness,’ observed the French philosopher Blaise Pascal in the 17th century, ‘is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room.’
    – user20253
    Mar 6, 2020 at 11:13
  • Welcome to SE Philosophy! Please be aware that questions are subject to editing and closure, and that reflects the site's policies on acceptable questions and NOT a personal attack. What to avoid in questions. Questions, including those that are closed, can be edited to bring them within guidelines. Keeping questions on-topic. Additional clarification at the meta site.
    – J D
    Mar 6, 2020 at 15:52

5 Answers 5

1

First, while an individual exists, his main priority is to survive, otherwise there's no possibility of performing no other act of lesser priority. Any other priority is secondary. If one wants to be a doctor, go to the cinema or get sex, one first needs to be alive.

Second, any system of behavioral regulation, like morals, ethics, law, religion, etc. is intended to increase the probabilities of the group survival. If we have a law or moral rules, it is not to punish and exclude people, it is just to prevent others from decreasing the probabilities of group survival.

Third, in a group, the group survival has a larger priority than individual survival, due to simple democracy. For example, if a murderer needs to be eliminated, his most important priority is to survive, but the group's most important priority will also be to survive by killing him. Therefore, the group priority prevails by applying democracy (the majority decided) and the killer is condemned to death.

Knowing that, you can easily conclude that each individual is compelled by ethics (and morals, and religion, etc.) to do something for the group survival. The law does not require that, but it requires not to do something that risks the group survival.

In addition, "doing something" means being constructive. Doing something implies constructing something that increases the group survival probabilities. Or destroying something that risks the group.

In consequence, yes, morals, ethics or religion demands you to do something constructive. Law does not enforce constructive acts, but prevents destruction by punishing them.

3
  • I love this answer. Survival is the prime motivation for action. The reason we have a cmplicated body and immune system and hunger and etc. is so that we can sustain this pattern we call the individual much longer than it otherwise could. But that's an afterthought, because we really can't say anything much about why nature has chosen to create individuals in the first place, with cognition that is beyond what's necessary for long term survival. I don't see any reason why one would need calculus in order to survive, yet we have calculus in the real world.
    – Weezy
    Feb 1, 2021 at 8:22
  • @Weezy: Mathematics is a language and a tool. As a tool, both help us solving problems, but not just simple problems. Complex problems (how can I go to other planets in order to survive global warming?) need of complex tools, like calculus. Calculus is just knowledge, and calculus knowledge (as a tool) is essential to survival.
    – RodolfoAP
    Feb 1, 2021 at 10:48
  • you're missing my point. The reason calculus was invented for was not motivated by a pressing need for survival unlike the invention of agriculture which had a lot of stressors on hunter gatherers. Similarly, now that calculus, a tool, serves the global population but that wasn't why it was created, is my point.
    – Weezy
    Feb 1, 2021 at 17:11
0

Many would say morality/ethics only exist in the context of a society (or more basically, two or more people interacting); so if you are truly doing nothing, then ethics/morals do not apply. However, no person is truly an island.

To "just exist in bed all day" already supposes a bed was manufactured and that the bed occupies a location somewhere. Which raises the ethical/moral questions such as: how was the bed acquired, is its position impeding the movement of others, and how is the state of the bed maintained?

...and to consider another "do nothing" scenario. I can't imagine many thinking well of a person that does nothing to stop a tragedy that costs them little to nothing to stop. (Watching a child drowning.)

4
  • Well if the bed is in my room, it doesn't stop anyone from going anywhere. And as far as the drowning child goes, isn't thinking that the opinion of the masses is correct a fallacy?
    – user40475
    Mar 6, 2020 at 19:22
  • @MichalisP. Having a room implies "something" was done to get that room. The point I was making is basically that it is really rather impossible to both exist and "do nothing", and (short of living as a hermit out in a remote region) pretty much impossible to avoid interacting in some form with others (which is where ethics enter the picture.) Yes, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, but I'd argue a less severe one for this kind of topic since the presence of other people is the basis of many ethical frameworks.
    – Uueerdo
    Mar 6, 2020 at 19:36
  • Even ignoring the involvement of other people, ones obligations to oneself (and whether there are any) need to be considered. "Laying in bed" too long can result in bed sores, which could be viewed as doing damage to your future self.
    – Uueerdo
    Mar 6, 2020 at 19:40
  • @Uueerdo " "Laying in bed" too long can result in bed sores, which could be viewed as doing damage to your future self. " That's such a lame argument for why you shouldn't lie in bed for an extended period of time. The main ones being serious respiratory/ heart issues due to lack of exercise, and therefore worse mental function (lack of exercise is linked to worse brain function). Feb 1, 2021 at 8:22
0

You might have observed the fact that all creatures do some 'work' in this world? Actually we forget about or we are unaware about that driving force. Chapter: 3 Verse: 5 of the Bhagavad Gita explains this. Please try to understand the meaning. https://gitajourney.com/category/chapter-3-verse-5/

Do I have to (/am I obligated to) do anything rather than doing nothing?

That force works; that's all. So you needn't say that it is your duty.

And is this something universal that we all agree on?

Of course. This is universal. People may agree on it. But they would agree on it fully only when they realize the truth.

Am I morally obligated to do certain things rather than just exist in my bed all day? Or even from a legal standpoint, am I obligated by the law to do something rather than nothing?

That driving force wouldn't allow you to sit idle without doing 'that certain things' rather than just exit in your bed all day. That force affects you/acts even in the form of obligations or laws (as created by humans).

0

Point of order...

'Doing nothing' — in the conventional understanding of the term: e.g., lazing about — is still doing something. It is actually quite difficult to get to a state of 'doing nothing', as anyone who's ever sat on a meditation cushion knows. What this question is actually asking is if and why we are obliged to do those things that are ostensibly dictated to us by outside forces.

So let's be clear. No one wants to 'lie in bed all day', not unless there is something (or someone) in that bed to make the activity interesting. Some few of us ardently pursue the spiritual life in which learning to 'do nothing' is a vital practice towards the goal of right action and right understanding, But most of us want to eat and drink, have sex, go places, meet people, see things, create stuff, or otherwise 'do' things that make our lives interesting and meaningful. But almost all of these things involve interactions with other people — if only in the trivial sense that we don't want to get stuck growing our own food and slaughtering our own animals — and interactions with other people are never value-free. We end up having to do things we don't particularly want to do so that we have stuff to exchange with others for what we do want to do.

Depressed people lie in bed all day because their inner state makes them shy away from contact with others. I do not recommend that...

Andrew Jackson once said: "There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is having lots to do and not doing it." It's a point worth taking.

2
  • Depressed people don’t lie in bed all day: they have to go to work. “I do not recommend that”. People should be allowed to be depressed if they want to be, especially in a world where being depressed is an appropriate state of mind given the world that we live in. I think it’s morally wrong to force or continuously pressure someone into seeking help for being depressed. Doing so is possibly even counter-productive. Offering a helping hand once in a while is fine but let people be the way that they are. I apologise if I appear to put words in your mouth: I don’t mean to. Feb 1, 2021 at 7:52
  • @AdamRubinson: Your point is well-taken, though I think you missed the forest for the trees. This wasn't an answer about depression; that line was for emphasis, not a philosophical position in its own right. But you made a useful clarification, thanks! Feb 1, 2021 at 8:35
0

“Am I morally obligated to do certain things rather than just exist in my bed all day.”

Basically, no you’re not.

Whether or not this question even makes sense depends on your personal life situation.

There isn’t anything that you are objectively morally required to do, because morality is entirely subjective.

If you can make easy money , or you’re rich, then you can spend the rest of your time doing what you want. Lying on your bed all day is one option. Although if you are rich, then you might eventually get bored of lying in bed all day and want to do something else.

If you’re not rich enough to enable yourself to lie in bed all day then the question is irrelevant because you have to work to pay food and to pay bills,regardless of whether or not you want to because you won’t survive otherwise.

You must log in to answer this question.