Freedomain Radio

"Don't be a quitter"

"it's important to stick to your commitments"

My wife is a big fan of Vickie Berman's blog, Demand Euphoria, and yesterday talked to me about a post on being a 'quitter':  http://demandeuphoria.blogspot.com/2011/02/im-quitter.html

Her initial reaction was that she didn't want our sons to be quitters, so we talked about it in the framework of UPB (I love my marriage!).  I asserted that to say it's 'bad' to quit what you've started, is to make a statement of UPB and that this statement must be logically examined for universality.  I believe it fails, what do you think?

kneelingatlas:

"Don't be a quitter"

"it's important to stick to your commitments"

My wife is a big fan of Vickie Berman's blog, Demand Euphoria, and yesterday talked to me about a post on being a 'quitter':  http://demandeuphoria.blogspot.com/2011/02/im-quitter.html

Her initial reaction was that she didn't want our sons to be quitters, so we talked about it in the framework of UPB (I love my marriage!).  I asserted that to say it's 'bad' to quit what you've started, is to make a statement of UPB and that this statement must be logically examined for universality.  I believe it fails, what do you think?

It think it depends on the context, but the way my parents handled it for me, staying with the subject of sports, was that once I had started a season and they had paid money on my behalf for me to play then I had to honor that commitment and finish the season out or find a way to pay them back.  If I didn't want to play anymore I could just not sign up next season.  I think that is a good consistent way to use UPB. 

I also had the same experience with college she mentions in her blog.  I was struggling with what I wanted to do with my life and sick of school in general, so after one semester I quit going to classes and took a few years off.  The result meant that when I went back I had much better grades, desire and focus and finished my 4-year degree in 2.5 years.  I didn't see it as quitting though, as I hadn't made any sort of voluntary commitment or implied contract with anyone that I would or wouldn't go to college. 

I think that in order to quit something their has to be a commitment on your part, and if that commitment involves some sort of mutual gain between you and someone else then there is an explicit or implied contract in place.  If so, then quitting would be a violation of UPB and retribution would be owed.  If you are merely "quitting" a hobby, there is nothing wrong with that.

Should Hitler have quit?

Ethics>commitments. :)

sensedata:

It think it depends on the context, but the way my parents handled it for me, staying with the subject of sports, was that once I had started a season and they had paid money on my behalf for me to play then I had to honor that commitment and finish the season out or find a way to pay them back.  If I didn't want to play anymore I could just not sign up next season.  I think that is a good consistent way to use UPB. 

So what you're saying is that your parents paid for your participation in one season of sports and if you failed to complete the season you are in breech of that contract?  Then that the prescribed remedy for that contract is that you repay the entire cost of the season?  Where these terms explicitly stated before you signed up for the season?

Godwin's Law within 2 posts, and by the site owner no less!  Impressive.

nathanm:

Godwin's Law within 2 posts, and by the site owner no less!  Impressive.

Very funny Nathan.

I like and agree with the blogger's post.  I think it's important that children be allowed to prioritize their own happiness, especially over meaningless commitments like those to sports teams.

The stigma of being a "quitter" is complete nonsense, and a blatant attack on someone's self esteem.  Fact is, people who have quit a lot of things, have tried a lot of things, and that is something to be proud of.

Lowe:

Fact is, people who have quit a lot of things, have tried a lot of things, and that is something to be proud of.

Stefan Molyneux:

Should Hitler have quit?

Ethics>commitments. :)

Should a Dr doing life saving surgery just quit if he feels like it?  Can't commitments sometimes be a question of ethics?

sensedata:

Stefan Molyneux:

Should Hitler have quit?

Ethics>commitments. :)

 

 

Should a Dr doing life saving surgery just quit if he feels like it?  Can't commitments sometimes be a question of ethics?

Did you miss the ">"?

If quitting things hadn't been such a moral horror when I was a kid, I probably would have quit a lot less.

Old Whig:

sensedata:

Stefan Molyneux:

Should Hitler have quit?

Ethics>commitments. :)

 Should a Dr doing life saving surgery just quit if he feels like it?  Can't commitments sometimes be a question of ethics?

Did you miss the ">"?

No, I didn't...  I'm just wondering if commitments can, at times, be a question of ethics.  In other words, can't commitments sometimes "=" ethics?

Maybe I'm just being dense.  If so, I apologize, but it seems that everyone so-far has simply accepted that nobody has any moral obligation what-so-ever to keep their commitments, and it's totally fine to just quit anything you want if you feel like it.  Sure, it's not a moral issue whether or not you should keep doing somethign innocuous like playing the piano or not, but aren't "commitments" just another way of saying implied contracts? 

I would think that most commitments lie in the realm of aesthetics, but it seems that there are instances where quitting would be a moral issue.

I'll try to think it though a bit more, though, before posting again.

Sensedata: I'm sorry, I didn't mean that to come off as demeaning you in any way.  Your comment is helpful in fleshing out the discussion.  The categories aren't mutually exclusive.  The priority must be placed on ethics in deciding whether to quit or not.  Commitments and promises are important, but they're not more important than being good.  If they 'lead us into temptation', we need to deliver ourselves from evil.

Old Whig:

Sensedata: I'm sorry, I didn't mean that to come off as demeaning you in any way.  Your comment is helpful in fleshing out the discussion.  The categories aren't mutually exclusive.  The priority must be placed on ethics in deciding whether to quit or not.  Commitments and promises are important, but they're not more important than being good.  If they 'lead us into temptation', we need to deliver ourselves from evil.

No worry!  I didn't take it that way at all.  And I totally agree with your comment. If you make a "commitment" to do something inethical, then doing the right thing is obviously more important than keeping your commitment.

After giving it a little thought, I think what I'm percieving in the thread (myself included) is since the blog is about kids, people's reaction are less to "commitments" in general and more specifically to their parents forcing them to do some activity.  I would assume that most, if not all, of us have had experience with parents projecting their regrets on to us.  It's the stereo-typical over bearing sports parents of the west or academic dictator parents in asia.   

That being said, I think the point I was trying to make is that if your parents sign you up to play baseball without ever asking if you want to, and then accuse you of being a quitter if you tell them you don't want to play anymore, that's NOT a commitment.  There has to be some sort of voluntary agreement on your part to do something for there to be a commitment, and in order to be percieved as someone who is both reliable and honest, you have to honor the commitments you voluntarily make when there is someone else on the other end who stands to lose from your "quitting".

All this talk about "commitments" sounds an awful lot like "the social contract" to me.  I challenge each of you to define these "commitments" you speak of in objective terms.

If a child registers for TBall and their parent pays the fee, what is the nature of the "commitment" they have made?  Has a contract been established? between the parent/child? or child/teammates?

sensedata, if " once [you] had started a season and [your parents] had paid money on [your] behalf for [you] to play then [you] had to honor that commitment and finish the season out or find a way to pay them back." were you obligated to pay back the entire amount? or a prorated amount?  What if you continued to show up, but picked dandelions in the outfield the whole game?  Where these terms explained to you before signing up, or did your parents just make them up arbitrarily?  Is the registration fee paid a gift from parent to child? or a payment for future performance?

Here's what my wife and I came up with:  quitting is not a moral dilemma, but rather a calculation of costs versus benefits; we plan to pay for our children's activities without strings attached, they will be gifts.  That being said, if gifts are squandered that cannot help but influence the future flow of gifts.  We will encourage our children to try new things, but if they feel like they want to quit, we will sit down with them and try to flesh out all the possible costs/benefits.  I find that before I began to explore myself and others, I actively avoided knowledge of costs/benefits which might contradict my emotional response.  Costs of quitting might include loss of opportunity for unexpected enjoyment, disappointment of teammates, social ostracism, but I will contend that loss of the entry fee is not a factor in the decision, as it is a sunk cost.  Benefits however, might include free time generated by quitting, an opportunity for the bench warmer to play, a sense that your parents respect your decisions.

"Should a Dr doing life saving surgery just quit if he feels like it?"

Absolutely!  The doctor performs a surgery, he is paid a fee, all accounts are settled, that's how a free market works.  You don't have to respect his decision, but if a doctor is evil because he stops performing crucial surgeries, what if he goes on vacation?  What if he wants to watch his son's baseball game?  Does his ability constitute a moral obligation?  What if he wants to be a painter instead?

PS: I hate the term "life saving" no lives can ever be 'saved' (the mortality rate for humans is 100%), a doctor can only increase ones odd of living another day.  Also, it's the sickness which kills a patient, not the doctor who chooses not to operate on them.