emma:
The best work a genius can do is to make a living at what he/she does best. if no one wants to buy the work, then the genius must continue
Yes, but a survival must be generated in order for the genius (or anyone else) to continue to do the worthwhile work.
Kevin:
Most of the "work" people are doing, such as 99% of journalism and marketing, or playing the shares market, or work in the fashion industry, or the business of religion, is only contributing to the degradation of society. It would be better described as vandalism.
Perhaps to probably, but whatever it is that generates income, if it is the best or only way a person can get income, I place more fault with the buyer than the seller.
I know a guy who lives off disability who runs support groups for the depression and bipolar support alliance, goes on emergency calls to quell disputes that are turning into domestic violence situations, and does other things that are helpful to human relations. IMO, he earns his check.
I know another guy who lives off disability who sponsors more people through AA than many counselors have clients. I think he earns his check, too.
Another guy I know lives off government subsidy, but he works full time hours as an EMT (the job market where he lives is awful).
I know another lady who lives off disability who has a band. She has agoraphobia, so they don't play in clubs - they just play in her garage. The neighbors are not happy with her.
So I agree that many times people who live off "handouts" actually contribute in whatever way they can.
I know people who earn their living playing the markets. They pay a lot of taxes that support people like the above. Their direct work may not contribute much to society, but their taxes do.
I changed careers to get out of the hospitals because the "bean counters" had taken over the show so much that it is not possible to do really good patient care. For awhile, I was able to at least assess who was in the most dire need and take care of those who would die without help first, then work my way down the priority list and at least get everyone reasonably taken care of. When it got to the point that the hospital priority was that it had to look right on paper even if it meant that people had to die (with the excuse of "it shouldn't matter to you. If enough people die, the policy will get changed") then that was enough for me. Would I be making a more "worthwhile" contribution if I were still in the hospital? Probably, but I can't treat people that inhumanely and I can't tolerate being treated as inhumanely as I have been treated working for other people.
Doing the most good is a top priority of ethics. How to do the most good while doing the least harm is a lot to consider including all the subsequent events. Probably the only way to "do no harm" is inaction, which leads to not doing any good either.
