It seems pretty context dependent to me.

For example, it’s one thing for you to set a high goal for yourself, accepting that you might fall short.

For someone else to do so is another thing all together. For example, I’m sure you’d be very annoyed if you hired a contractor to build you a little 2-bedroom bungalow, only to have the contractor decide to “strive” to build you a cathedral–and fall short, leaving you with a great foundation and some very expensive copper roofing over a rickety shack on top, because (no matter how he strove) there wasn’t enough money.

” I don’t want to work 80 hour weeks or take business risks just to be rich”

love it

I think once a person reach contentment, they can relax

The problem is that no one ever have “enough”

On a side note, I think you are underestimating the difference in physical ability between humans.

I was a college athlete at a small liberal arts school (NAIA). In high school, I was an elite distance runner (top 30) in my state. In college, I was average in the NAIA.

The difference between me and an average human was vast. An average human can probably run an 8:00 mile. I could run a 4:30 mile. An average human probably can’t run three miles at once. I could run 5k in 15:38. The average human absolutely cannot run a mini-marathon. I ran a 72:00 mini (you do the math).

Now, that’s all fine and dandy. However, the difference between an elite athlete and me is ten times the difference between me and an average person. The difference between a 4:30 mile and a 4:00 miles is far, far greater than the difference between an 8:00 mile and a 4:30 mile. The difference between a 72:00 mini and a 65:00 mini is far greater than the difference between barely being able to walk a mini and running a 72:00.

In other words, truly elite athletes are probably 1,000x better than average people.

I was going to leave basically the same comment as Matt G. because there is an important difference between morals and ideals, but I do like the connections you’ve made here.

Morally I don’t fall into either category, but financially I can relate to both of them in some ways.

I completely agree! aiming for the starts is better than having a mediocre safe goal that you’re likely to achieve. Aiming for the stars pushes you to be a better person all round. Great post Jacob.

Hmmm… since I’m not up on philospophy, and it’s too late to learn, I thought I’d check on some of the “words”… This threw me:

The movement is closely related to postmodernism. As with structuralism, antihumanism is often a central tenet. Existential phenomenology is a significant influence; Colin Davis has argued that post-structuralists might just as accurately be called “post-phenomenologists”. Some commentators have criticized post-structuralism for being radically relativistic or nihilistic; others have objected to its extremity and linguistic complexity. Others see it as a threat to traditional values or professional scholarly standards.
whoooeee…

… but if this is anyway near close, here’s some thinking. Maybe too political.
Before the recession, the emphasis was on building value… cashing in on home values to extract cash… a never ending cycle that would make everyone rich. Sell the house, take the cash, buy another house.. flip the house.. Values would go up forver.
Use leverage to create bubbles… trade derivatives… Forget Glass Steagall, banks reign. Profits to the bottom line. Wealth concentration.
……………………………………….
They knew… they all knew… Victorian rules were there. They violated them… knowingly. Bankers who bought politicians… Politicians that broke the rules. Morality gone.

That’s my view.
……………………………………….
On the other hand. That’s the way the world has evolved. the new age. Those who understand find and understand… and use the loopholes to stay out of legal reach. By their (sic) wisdom, manage to capitalize on the new postmodernism and enjoy the fruits of the new morality.

Not easy to understand for some of us oldsters.

Thanks… I started to read the reviews, and realized that I think I read it a long time ago.
(age is taking its’ toll, and I have trouble reading books anymore)
Anyway, whether from that book or some other, the late 70’s was an AHA moment. The change from being a field manager to the corporate office. Right or wrong a turning point to recognize that performance takes second place to fitting in to the corporate mold. A turning point that said success was based on a strong ego, and personal ambition… not on teamwork, and most certainly not based on individual performance (though the strong ego wouldn’t recognize that).
It was a hard lesson. For me, a decided downer, as I could never be that person.
Playing by the rules and doing a good job, and keeping the moral compass alive, regular promotions… (leaving the previous job, and being replaced by two people to do the same work)…
Still, rising to the higher echelons… disenchanted with idea that the end hustifies the means, opted out of the meanness and the rule bending. Found a creative niche outside the network, and found satisfaction,(though this put a limit on the earning power), and later led to self employment, until cancer scare triggered the retirement decision at age 53.
I don’t know if this fits in to the original blog on morals, but it’s the way I saw it then, and the way I see it now.
Am not convinced that the people who become molded into “gamesmen” really believe that there is a different, legally defined level of morality that allows their behavior. This leads to cynicism and distrust… which I hate, but find that more often than not, it’s justified.

Oh… and by the way, the formative years of my life, were spent living in the last vestiges of Victorian rules in an extended family. A wonderful time of black and white without shades of grey. …and before TV. 🙂