I don't like the idea that there are positive,
discretionary, duties, and negative duties which one must
do.
First, i'd like to say that the distinction between
positive and negative duties is pretty arbitrary. It's a
positive duty to donate to charity in order to save
people's lives when they are far away, however if
someone demanded money from you, holding a hostage at
gunpoint, it would be considered a negative duty, and
refusing would be considered evil. If you were walking
by a someone who needs immediate medical attention in a
crowded street, it would be considered evil to simply
ignore her. Positive duties are just duties
far away enough for people to avoid thinking about them
using the bystander effect. People refuse to assent to a
theory which indicts them as sinners.
One reason why people believe in this distinction is
that they want to attend to the pursuit of pleasure as
opposed to virtue or sainthood or whatever. While some
people think that pleasure is something which can be
increased (utilitarians speak of "maximising utility"),
i think pleasure approaches a baseline level on average.
A person who pursues pleasure will never be satisfied,
nay, she will take the pleasures she has for granted,
and worry about those she doesn't have. But happiness is
attainable and comes from being in harmony with the
world. Someone in harmony with the world is naturally
only concerned with their own conduct, since that's what
they can control. Such a person could, to varying
degrees, prioritise either maintaining their happiness
(leading a life which is easy to not be anxious or
wanting in), or some moral goal. I feel like it is
superior to lead a life prioritising a moral goal than
the goal of happiness. It is possible to be happy while
pursuing greater goals, so pursuing only happiness is
just like giving up your entire life to nothing and
idleness just so that it is easier for you. This is why
i feel you should prioritise moral perfection over all
other things.