Sufficient

How much is enough?  Did Abraham Lincoln wonder whether he was working hard enough to preserve the Union?  Does the Dalai Lama second-guess himself over whether he’s making sufficient progress along the road to enlightenment? At the end of the day, was Jesus Christ worried that there were still some miracles left undone?  Is it enough to not be a terrible person or are we required to really make the world a better place all of the time?

Suppose someone gets up in the morning, drinks organically-raised free trade coffee, takes a quick water-saving shower, dresses in clothes bought second-hand, walks their dog, picks up the poop, and disposes of it responsibly, and then settles down to a day that mostly involves reading fiction, taking walks, preparing vegetarian meals, checking out the news online, and running a few errands by bike; does that earn them the right to consider the day well-lived?  Or is something missing due to their failure to directly confront one of the great problems facing humanity, like homelessness, drug abuse, child trafficking,  climate change, or the proliferation of pickleball courts?

On our deathbed, as we look back over our life, will we say to ourselves, “Good job, old friend, you’ve made a positive dent in the world,” or will we whisper more quietly, “For heaven’s sake, chum, why didn’t you do more for others and less for yourself?”  Or will it be something more in the middle, where we remain puzzled about the overall balance of goodness we effected?  (Probably).

If you compare yourself to the real baddies—people like Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer or a certain world leader who prioritizes their own self-interest over the needs of the people (take your pick here)—you may feel pretty good about what you’ve accomplished.  But if you hold yourself up against saints like Dolly Parton or Mr. Rogers, then it’s likely you don’t come out so well.

Seems obvious, therefore, what to do.