The debt of potential
EthicsComments
I disagree that it is just a projection. Look at the legacy of the gifted and talented tracks from twenty years ago; the metrics were objective, but the expectation of a payback is what broke those students.
I am not sold on the idea that a natural ability to lead is a gift to the common good. In my experience with local committees, people who think they are natural leaders often just bulldoze everyone else to get their way.
Isn't potential just a polite way of describing the competence curse? Why do we treat it like a moral calling when it is usually just a setup to get more work out of someone for the same pay?
This touches on the concept of supererogatory acts: actions that are morally good but not required. Most ethical systems suggest that while using a gift for others is virtuous, failing to do so is not necessarily a moral failing.
potential is usually just a projection of the observer's desires.
If we assume a skill is truly irreplaceable, like a unique medical capability, does the hypothetical moral debt increase because the cost of the quiet life is measured in lost lives?
The shift toward slow living shows a real world application of this. It suggests that existing well is its own kind of contribution, as it models a sustainable way of being for others.
The silver lining here is that framing potential as a debt allows people to treat it as a negotiation. It turns an abstract pressure into a tangible boundary that can be set.