Julian Baggini: Why do we think Amy let us down?

The burden of the exceptionally talented is that what they leave undone, no others can do

Tuesday 26 July 2011 00:00 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Amid the mourning and sympathy, it is not difficult to discern a hint of condemnation for Amy Winehouse because of the talent she squandered. The world is a worse place as a result. But does that mean that she deserves to be blamed for our loss?

It's not generally the case that simply being the recipient of a gift places you under an obligation to use it. An unused present need not reflect ingratitude but poor selection by the giver.

Nevertheless, we often have to take into account circumstances that are not of our choosing. You do not choose your parents, for example, but no visit from a stranger can replace one from you. In a similar way, the burden of the exceptionally talented is that what they leave undone, no others can do. In neither case does that mean we must do what we alone can do, but it does oblige us to give due weight to the interests of others who depend on us.

This way of thinking does not fit the classical liberal model, where the only obligations we are under are ones we consent to, tacitly or explicitly. It is rather a deeply conservative notion, rooted in the idea that we are the products of a society and culture and that simply in virtue of this, we have duties to others. If the conservative mistake is to overstate the claims of this inheritance, the liberal mistake is to deny it altogether.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in