The conundrum I discussed in the post was the proper degree to which accomplishments should be judged according to the effort and sacrifice they required.
Here is Jutgory’s Comment of the Day exploring the question further:
***
Not to solve your problem, but maybe I can make it clearer.
The distinction between effort and outcome is very basic. The Stoics observed that you have complete control over your effort, but no control over the outcome of those efforts. As a result, you can control how much effort you put into something, but it will not guarantee success. (Nietzsche kind of flipped this around and said that the great man is the one who could make reality to conform to his will. Maybe that is what a ton of effort, tenacity, and luck will get you. I am sure you can find examples of that in the lives of the Presidents.)
It is also embedded in the Declaration of Independence. Happiness is not an inalienable right; you only are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness. That is, you have the right to decide what you think will make you happy and pursue those goals, as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others to do the same.
We are not a communist country, where your pursuits are assigned to you based upon your skills and aptitude. It is not even like a lot of Europe, where your choices are limited by a number of social constraints. Don’t even get me started about the caste system in India. We value the ability to choose our path. What we seem to have forgotten is that Happiness is not guaranteed; failure is always a possibility. (That may be what is behind this essay; I have not read it yet.)
Remember what Aristotle said: there are things that a person is good at and there are things a person enjoys. The happy person will be good at the things he enjoys. If all you have managed to do, Jack, is some things you enjoy that you were also good at, you are doing pretty well.
When I went to law school, I thought I would make a very good judge. I still think I have the skills to be a very discerning and prudent judge. But, then I sit in a Monday morning cattle call on the bail calendar and I realize how dreadfully tedious the job is. I think I would be very good at deciding questions of evidence at a trial, but then I realize that you are doing the same repetitive voir dire and jury instructions every time.. Now, the only thing that inclines me to pursue the judiciary is taking away that position from some candidate who simply seeks the position for its prestige, something that barely interests me.
Yes, legal work can be equally tedious and repetitive. But, it has given me control over my schedule (to a degree, says the guy who had to appear remotely in Minnesota from Tennessee because my associate got food poisoning last night). I could make more money if I worked for someone else, and I would not like it, my wife would not like parts of that trade-off, and my children would like it less. And, regardless, I can point to the fact that the work I do helps people solve problems they have (usually). Am I putting my skills to their highest and best use. Probably not. But, I would say I am doing pretty good anyway. There is always a trade-off.
I am not guaranteed, but I am doing what I think will make me (and those around me) happier.
Ethics Alarms 
An added observatioon- All work no, no matter the field is “tedious and repetetive.”
In my life , I have worked:
So, I repeat no matter the job, blue collar or white, the tasks are findmentaly “tedious and repetetive”.
I challenge anyone to give example of that which is not?
I found the task of theatrical directing exhausting, frustrating, infuriating and more, but never boring, even when a production crunch meant long hours every day for weeks on end. And if there had been any way I felt I could have a normal life and make a living doing that until I dropped, it would have been wonderful. And there are other examples….
But never repetitive, even when you were working on plays you’d done before, or doing audition after audition?
No, amazingly enough. The reason is that the task is multifaceted and involves observation of human beings, their abilities, and their potential in all their infinite variations. Moreover it is creative in nature, in some respect, all the time, every time, it could never be done perfectly, and there was always something to learn.
We are getting close to discussing the concept defined by the Japanese word “ikagi”, which roughly translates as “that which motivates you to make a worthwhile effort”, or more simply, “a reason for being.” Ikagi is the overlap / intersection of four elements: what you enjoy, what you are good at, what allows you earn a living, and what contributes to the world.
In my work as an employment attorney, I frequently counsel clients on the nature of their business and their work. The happiest clients are people who are good at a job they enjoy, which brings proper and sufficient remuneration, and allows them the satisfaction making the world a (slightly) better place. Effort for them almost always leads to positive results because they enjoy meaningful (for them) work.
There’s an excellent graphic in this article: https://medium.com/@marenkate/ikigai-and-the-four-ps-how-to-get-paid-enjoy-your-work-solve-problems-and-find-purpose-8c9dc615648f
thanks for this: Ikagi (sure, I should be thanking the Japanese, but what have they done for me lately).
useful concept. It combines a lot of common concerns of course, if I were to tattoo that on my back, as I am wont to do, someone would explain that it means “pond eel,” which is more accurate than you might expect.
-Jut
I’ve used this in legal ethics seminars and elsewhere, though my diagram calls it “Ikigai” And I posted on it in 2017, here.