> it's unconditionally making the world of the family worse
It obviously is.
The 48 hours or whatever curing cancer can and will continue another time. Child birth won't.
And if you can't even afford to prioritize your family at such little cost to your work, then I think it's also pretty easy to assert that the world of the family will continually be worse off. Unless you actually cure cancer next year, collect your $1billion and quit your job to focus on your family from then on.
It's much more likely you're going to continually prioritize trivial work events (or in this scenario, non-events) over important family ones.
> Unless you actually cure cancer next year, collect your $1billion and quit your job to focus on your family from then on.
Why is a hard cut-off date required?
If you take into account that your family extends into the future indefinitely (not just your children) and that there are gradual benefits (not just black-white) then spending time now to gradually improve the world for future generations (including those of your family) then you can come to the conclusion that a little hardship now could have tremendous payoffs in the future.
Maybe a slightly better example than the cancer case:
- spend a lot time with family now
- miss climate change goals by the end of the century, making life significantly worse for everyone.
- spend less time with family now
- meet goals, life continues to be good for hundreds of years to come
I know that this example is fairly reductionist, ignores diminishing returns and has various other problems, but it's merely there to illustrate that it gets a lot more difficult to appreciate the value of a little personal time in the present if you have an unusual utility-function in your moral code that applies a lot more weight to the future than most people do.
> it's merely there to illustrate that it gets a lot more difficult to appreciate the value of a little personal time in the present if you have an unusual utility-function in your moral code that applies a lot more weight to the future than most people do.
That actually comes off very egotistical.
The damage you do to your family today by putting a simple job before them is likely to do damage far into the future.
Because you aren't that important. The cure will almost happen (or not) with or without you. The best you can likely hope for is to accelerate it. Everyone is replaceable in a job. Everyone. Parents aren't.
A decade ago I'd have been much more willing to agree with you. But today it feels like a superficial rationalization of ego. One man does not get to Mars.
Seems like this should be one of those named Internet Laws. i.e.: Any mention of "...more than most people" is self-flattery and an indication that the user lacks the empathy to understand that most people have actually considered the same thing at one point or another in their lives. As a corollary, the position professed generally only holds any truth in as much as most people have already considered and rejected it's premise and matured beyond it.
> Because you aren't that important. The cure will almost happen (or not) with or without you. The best you can likely hope for is to accelerate it. Everyone is replaceable in a job. Everyone. Parents aren't.
By this standard I'd say that children are also replaceable, and therefore so are the parents. From the society's point of view, children are a commodity.
> That actually comes off very egotistical.
I strongly disagree. I find the opposite belief, that you should prioritize yourself and a small circle around you above all other people, to be much more self-centered. And it's part of the reason the world needs fixing in the first place - because most of the people tend to focus on themselves and their families at the expense of everyone else.
