Is it wrong to judge a person's 'goodness' by how hard they work? (millionaires, how much)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've noticed a lot of people, especially Americans for some reason, will often praise a person's merits, and 'hard working' is one of the ones that comes up most often.
Which makes me wonder, because I do get philosophical about little things like this, is a person's value judged by how much they break their backs? Is a workaholic a nicer, better and more valuable person than someone who likes to take it easy?
Personally I think the concept of being a hard worker defining your worth as a human being is rooted in two things. One of them is Capitalist ideology. In capitalism, the person who produces more stuff, more wealth, is considered better than the person who takes it easy and only works hard enough to survive, and is considered infinitely more moral than the person who lives off the dole.
The other reason is that in the old days, being lazy often meant you were dishonest, and weren't doing your part. Nowadays, we have an excess of wealth, and people have a perfectly legit choice to be lazy and not produce. In fact I would argue those who work too much are foolish because most of their labor goes into enriching people who do not deserve it.
Personally I think the concept of being a hard worker defining your worth as a human being is rooted in two things. One of them is Capitalist ideology. In capitalism, the person who produces more stuff, more wealth, is considered better than the person who takes it easy and only works hard enough to survive, and is considered infinitely more moral than the person who lives off the dole.
It isn't "hard work" by itself, that defines economic worth (that seems to be a common assumption used, it seems by both people who seem to both criticize and support both "capitalism", or "socialism")-- that would be related to the generally discredited "labour theory of value" which assumes a created product's value is based on how much effort went into it, rather than a signal of supply relative to demand.
I could work really hard, and spend a long time doing a service that you could easily do better quickly and with less effort -- you would be rewarded for your efficiency. I wouldn't. Or, I could work real hard at creating a product or service that isn't in demand and thus not get much out of it -- it's not like I would gain something just because I tried so much. Yes hard work and effort matters obviously, but it's not sufficient.
Okay aside from just the economics of it, as to the "moral judgement" of hard work, I don't know, as you say it's about philosophy. Probably would depend on what you value and consider important. I'm sure there are many angles to it -- ie. for instance what you work hard to do or accomplish in the first place (for instance, if the same amount of effort was put in by one person at an art gallery versus another at a hospital, some would argue the latter is more crucial to society and be worth more even if they worked the same, others would disagree), your views on what duty you have to society by working, the world and other circumstances you are in (for instance, some would say it's immoral if you work a lot to earn money to yourself at the expense of spending quality time with family) etc. Plus, what is "hard work" or "lazy" is very subjective from person to person and task to task.
I've noticed a lot of people, especially Americans for some reason, will often praise a person's merits, and 'hard working' is one of the ones that comes up most often.
Which makes me wonder, because I do get philosophical about little things like this, is a person's value judged by how much they break their backs? Is a workaholic a nicer, better and more valuable person than someone who likes to take it easy?
Personally I think the concept of being a hard worker defining your worth as a human being is rooted in two things. One of them is Capitalist ideology. In capitalism, the person who produces more stuff, more wealth, is considered better than the person who takes it easy and only works hard enough to survive, and is considered infinitely more moral than the person who lives off the dole.
The other reason is that in the old days, being lazy often meant you were dishonest, and weren't doing your part. Nowadays, we have an excess of wealth, and people have a perfectly legit choice to be lazy and not produce. In fact I would argue those who work too much are foolish because most of their labor goes into enriching people who do not deserve it.
Well if you are a workaholic, you're doing good to the elite rich who don't need more money, but you are doing bad to yourself, unless you truly enjoy your work.
Well if you are a workaholic, you're doing good to the elite rich who don't need more money, but you are doing bad to yourself, unless you truly enjoy your work.
It has always been my impression that a workaholic is a person who enjoys his job or enjoys being compensated for doing more work.
I've noticed a lot of people, especially Americans for some reason, will often praise a person's merits, and 'hard working' is one of the ones that comes up most often. Hard working is an indicator of what a person is. I do not think it should be the only one thing to look at though. It may be because hard work could be one of the most visible things people see of others on their daily dealings.
Which makes me wonder, because I do get philosophical about little things like this, is a person's value judged by how much they break their backs? Is a workaholic a nicer, better and more valuable person than someone who likes to take it easy? Person's value? That to me is very subjective. To you what is valuable may not be to me so it is hard to say what is a person's value. How much they break their backs may be an indicator. Why is that person breaking his back? To have two houses and have lobster as much as possible? If so, what is wrong with that as long as he does not bother others and abuse others? Some will not want to hear that either because they feel the value is measured on how they help others. If you like to take it easy, no problem as far as I am concerned as long as your taking it easy does not affect me also. Nicer? There are hard workers that are very nice and there philantropists or preists that are jerks.
Personally I think the concept of being a hard worker defining your worth as a human being is rooted in two things. One of them is Capitalist ideology. In capitalism, the person who produces more stuff, more wealth, is considered better than the person who takes it easy and only works hard enough to survive, and is considered infinitely more moral than the person who lives off the dole. To me a human being is a good person regardless of what he does and how much he achieves in the material sense as long as he does not abuse others, interfere with their rights, is fair to those he deals with, and is a productive citizen.
The other reason is that in the old days, being lazy often meant you were dishonest, and weren't doing your part. Nowadays, we have an excess of wealth, and people have a perfectly legit choice to be lazy and not produce. In fact I would argue those who work too much are foolish because most of their labor goes into enriching people who do not deserve it.
Who and who does and does not deserve something is very open for discussion. If I have made enough in my life that does not mean I do not lke new challenges. I may have made millions and could live eating lobster at every meal does not mean I lost the challenge in making more money. What is wrong with that. If you think it is foolish I respect your view but my view is that you reflected a narrow mind. If you make millions and want to be lazy, go for it, you earned it. Others may make millions and do not mind keeping busy making more and along the way providing jobs for thousands of others. I assure you that they would not give you some nice comments if you told them those millionaires should be lazy now. Ask them if they mind those millionaires are selfish and greedy in trying to make more money and along the way producing jobs, take care.
As an old song relates: "Them that works the hardest are the least provided". Too many people judge others not on how hard they work but by how much money they collect. In this society the most admired are the richest, not the most moral.
The reason is simple. Most people worship the God of money, greed and selfishness. That God dispenses his favors on the most egomaniacal and greediest. These generally are not the best people around because by and large they cannot be trusted to keep their word when deception will yield then more money, power or prestige. These are not the best people around but the worst.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
