Is the work ethic ethical?

[Unknown Soldier]

Help stamp out hyperbole!

If I prefer cow's milk to soy milk, does that mean that I enjoy massacring animals?

I don't know if you enjoy massacring animals, but with some justification you can be said to be contributing to the mistreatment of animals by purchasing cow's milk although I don't really hold that position.

the work ethic ... appears to favor those who own businesses and makes the wealthy out to be virtuous while the poor are living in vice--both views having little truth to them. The work ethic appears to sow social discord by painting many minorities as bad, and those minorities include single parents, some ethnic groups, and the disabled.

Is it ethical to tell kids that work makes them virtuous when we all know that work can make criminals out of people? Should we libel the unemployed smearing them as scoundrels when we know full well that many unemployed people are actually quite virtuous?

Your argument relies on excessive extrapolation.

I'm not sure how I've extrapolated. Extrapolation means to make predictions based on recent trends. Are you sure you're using the right word here?

To preach that it is better for an able-bodied person to work than to be lazy is a very far cry from condemning a disabled person unable to work as sinful.

I happen to be very disabled, and I've been attacked for being unemployed. Other disabled people I've known have the same problem. At least one of my attackers justified his spiel by alluding to the work ethic. It's dangerous to come up with a philosophy that encourages resentment or bigotry against a class of people. So it's not as far a cry as you assert here.

Anyway, as I see it, there's nothing ethical or unethical about work; it's just something that needs to be done. Most people I know don't like work, but that has nothing to do with their characters. There are good and bad among the employed and the unemployed.

 

[TomC]

I happen to be very disabled, and I've been attacked for being unemployed. Other disabled people I've known have the same problem. At least one of my attackers justified his spiel by alluding to the work ethic. It's dangerous to come up with a philosophy that encourages resentment or bigotry against a class of people. So

This is what he meant by "extrapolation".

So some dumbass was mean to you with his work ethic spiel. The world is full of dumbass people. Most of us don't have a problem with supporting people with problems. Young/old, sick, whatever, I certainly don't have a problem with it.

You are extrapolating from some mean people to "the work ethic". Some people take it too far and can't slow down and enjoy life. Some hard working people are corrupt.
But none of that is remotely like an indictment of the work ethic itself.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think it might be better to think in other terms like...
Did I do my fair share so long as I was able?
Were the things I was doing beneficial and/or moral?
And what will I or loved ones gain or lose from my work?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Help stamp out hyperbole!

If I prefer cow's milk to soy milk, does that mean that I enjoy massacring animals?

I don't know if you enjoy massacring animals, but with some justification you can be said to be contributing to the mistreatment of animals by purchasing cow's milk although I don't really hold that position.

How can a person be talking about ethics, but then saying mistreatment of animals is of little concern to them? Why you'd support dog fighting rings is just beyond my ability to understand.

the work ethic ... appears to favor those who own businesses and makes the wealthy out to be virtuous while the poor are living in vice--both views having little truth to them. The work ethic appears to sow social discord by painting many minorities as bad, and those minorities include single parents, some ethnic groups, and the disabled.

Is it ethical to tell kids that work makes them virtuous when we all know that work can make criminals out of people? Should we libel the unemployed smearing them as scoundrels when we know full well that many unemployed people are actually quite virtuous?

Your argument relies on excessive extrapolation.

I'm not sure how I've extrapolated. Extrapolation means to make predictions based on recent trends. Are you sure you're using the right word here?

Yes, and you used it excessively.

To preach that it is better for an able-bodied person to work than to be lazy is a very far cry from condemning a disabled person unable to work as sinful.

I happen to be very disabled, and I've been attacked for being unemployed. Other disabled people I've known have the same problem. At least one of my attackers justified his spiel by alluding to the work ethic.

Oh... is this another one of those... "the world exists as only I have experienced it" threads?

It's dangerous to come up with a philosophy that encourages resentment or bigotry against a class of people. So it's not as far a cry as you assert here.

Anyway, as I see it, there's nothing ethical or unethical about work; it's just something that needs to be done. Most people I know don't like work, but that has nothing to do with their characters. There are good and bad among the employed and the unemployed.

Work ethic should be a two-way street. Companies should have a give a take based on the capacity of their workers to do their job and be reliable.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I happen to be very disabled, and I've been attacked for being unemployed. Other disabled people I've known have the same problem. At least one of my attackers justified his spiel by alluding to the work ethic. It's dangerous to come up with a philosophy that encourages resentment or bigotry against a class of people. So

This is what he meant by "extrapolation".

So some dumbass was mean to you with his work ethic spiel. The world is full of dumbass people. Most of us don't have a problem with supporting people with problems.

You're trivializing what I'm saying by implying that those who are influenced by the work ethic are a bunch of silly ignoramuses on the fringe. "Just ignore them--they'll go away." But it's not that easy. The work ethic pervades society and is held to be true by some of society's most influential people like Ronald Reagan. As president he made it a practice to cut government programs to help the poor. He believed he helped the poor that way because if they worked hard, then they would make it!

Young/old, sick, whatever, I certainly don't have a problem with it.

That's a good attitude because some day you will be old and likely sick. If you oppose helping the poor today, then it will probably do you harm tomorrow.

You are extrapolating from some mean people to "the work ethic".

Again, I think you're using the wrong term. The phrase "making a hasty generalization" would better fit what you're saying.

Some people take it too far and can't slow down and enjoy life. Some hard working people are corrupt.
But none of that is remotely like an indictment of the work ethic itself.

Did you know that the Nazis used propaganda attacking the disabled as a burden on the workers of society? The message was basically that since the disabled presumably didn't work, then they had negative value.

 

[Swammerdami]

I happen to be very disabled, and I've been attacked for being unemployed. Other disabled people I've known have the same problem. At least one of my attackers justified his spiel by alluding to the work ethic. It's dangerous to come up with a philosophy that encourages resentment or bigotry against a class of people. So it's not as far a cry as you assert here.

Anyway, as I see it, there's nothing ethical or unethical about work; it's just something that needs to be done. Most people I know don't like work, but that has nothing to do with their characters. There are good and bad among the employed and the unemployed.

I see that this matter is personal with you and I apologize if my remarks were poorly phrased.

Whether we speak of "extrapolation" or "over-generalization", I think you and I are in agreement that the world must be viewed as shades of gray. My remarks weren't directed at your post, but were provoked by the general tendency to over-generalize to Good or Evil, with no middle ground. (One see this for example in the Hamas-Israel War that just started: Apologists for Israel's own atrocities seem unwilling to admit that Palestinians are born with just as much capacity for love as anyone else, but are enraged by Israel's own war crimes.)

 

[southernhybrid]

I happen to be very disabled, and I've been attacked for being unemployed. Other disabled people I've known have the same problem. At least one of my attackers justified his spiel by alluding to the work ethic. It's dangerous to come up with a philosophy that encourages resentment or bigotry against a class of people. So

This is what he meant by "extrapolation".

So some dumbass was mean to you with his work ethic spiel. The world is full of dumbass people. Most of us don't have a problem with supporting people with problems.

You're trivializing what I'm saying by implying that those who are influenced by the work ethic are a bunch of silly ignoramuses on the fringe. "Just ignore them--they'll go away." But it's not that easy. The work ethic pervades society and is held to be true by some of society's most influential people like Ronald Reagan. As president he made it a practice to cut government programs to help the poor. He believed he helped the poor that way because if they worked hard, then they would make it!

Young/old, sick, whatever, I certainly don't have a problem with it.

That's a good attitude because some day you will be old and likely sick. If you oppose helping the poor today, then it will probably do you harm tomorrow.

You are extrapolating from some mean people to "the work ethic".

Again, I think you're using the wrong term. The phrase "making a hasty generalization" would better fit what you're saying.

Some people take it too far and can't slow down and enjoy life. Some hard working people are corrupt.
But none of that is remotely like an indictment of the work ethic itself.

Did you know that the Nazis used propaganda attacking the disabled as a burden on the workers of society? The message was basically that since the disabled presumably didn't work, then they had negative value.

I'm pretty sure you took what Tom said the wrong way. I got the impression that he meant that he has no problem with giving support to those who are disabled or sick. He can correct me if I'm the one who was wrong. But, if you reread his post, he said and I quote: "Most of us don't have a problem with supporting people with problems. Young/old, sick, whatever, I certainly don't have a problem with it. " You left that line out." So, will you apologize to Tom for misunderstanding?

 

[TomC]

I got the impression that he meant that he has no problem with giving support to those who are disabled or sick. He can correct me if I'm the one who was wrong. But, if you reread his post, he said and I quote: "Most of us don't have a problem with supporting people with problems. Young/old, sick, whatever, I certainly don't have a problem with it. "

That's exactly what I meant.

I want to live in a humane society. From education to disability support, everything like that. We Americans can well afford to be humane.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I happen to be very disabled, and I've been attacked for being unemployed. Other disabled people I've known have the same problem. At least one of my attackers justified his spiel by alluding to the work ethic. It's dangerous to come up with a philosophy that encourages resentment or bigotry against a class of people. So it's not as far a cry as you assert here.

Anyway, as I see it, there's nothing ethical or unethical about work; it's just something that needs to be done. Most people I know don't like work, but that has nothing to do with their characters. There are good and bad among the employed and the unemployed.

I see that this matter is personal with you and I apologize if my remarks were poorly phrased.

Say whatever you want to. I can take care of myself.

Whether we speak of "extrapolation" or "over-generalization", I think you and I are in agreement that the world must be viewed as shades of gray.

That depends on what part of the world you're referring to. Some parts of the world are clearly binary. As far as ethics is concerned, I think we can come to some definitive conclusions.

I should emphasize that my position on the work ethic is in your better interests. You don't want to find yourself sick or injured or otherwise being unable to be employed without the means to survive and having people telling you that you're a bad person who only deserves what you can work for. Yes, today you might pay taxes to support other people, but the good news is that when you're not able to earn your income, you'll still have income from other people paying taxes. That's the way it works.

My remarks weren't directed at your post, but were provoked by the general tendency to over-generalize to Good or Evil, with no middle ground.

I don't see how what you're saying here is relevant to the topic. Are you saying I "over generalized" the work ethic in some way?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some people take it too far and can't slow down and enjoy life. Some hard working people are corrupt.
But none of that is remotely like an indictment of the work ethic itself.

Did you know that the Nazis used propaganda attacking the disabled as a burden on the workers of society? The message was basically that since the disabled presumably didn't work, then they had negative value.

Yeah, but that's the Nazis, not the average person. Most people don't agree with this. I believe people should contribute to society--but I recognize that not all actually can. I do not feel those that can't have done anything wrong. Some people were dealt a bad hand in life and are a cost on society--but I think it's a cost society should willingly pay. (Although I don't agree with everything they do in that regard--we spend a lot of effort on "educating" those who will never be able to meaningfully use whatever little knowledge they are able to absorb.)

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm pretty sure you took what Tom said the wrong way. I got the impression that he meant that he has no problem with giving support to those who are disabled or sick. He can correct me if I'm the one who was wrong. But, if you reread his post, he said and I quote: "Most of us don't have a problem with supporting people with problems. Young/old, sick, whatever, I certainly don't have a problem with it. " You left that line out."

I didn't leave that line out. Here's my response:

Unknown Soldier:
That's a good attitude because some day you will be old and likely sick. If you oppose helping the poor today, then it will probably do you harm tomorrow.

Just read my posts if you reply to them. I shouldn't need to repeat myself.

So, will you apologize to Tom for misunderstanding?

1. I didn't misunderstand anybody.
2. You didn't bother to read my post and got it wrong.
3. I'm not here to play games.

 

[steve_bank]

Part of the 'protestant work ethic' was delayed gratification. Work today for a benefit in the futu You work for what you want.

Today the auto union is demanding full pay and vesting from the day you start working without any experience.

The idea of working your way up from the bottom is gone. New college grads expect instant success after graduation.

The flip side of the OP may be is it ethical to be a slacker while others work hard to provide the things you need to live.

There is a new term 'soft resignation'. Do the absolute minimum needed to keep your job and do nothing more.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm pretty sure you took what Tom said the wrong way. I got the impression that he meant that he has no problem with giving support to those who are disabled or sick. He can correct me if I'm the one who was wrong. But, if you reread his post, he said and I quote: "Most of us don't have a problem with supporting people with problems. Young/old, sick, whatever, I certainly don't have a problem with it. " You left that line out."

I didn't leave that line out. Here's my response:

Unknown Soldier:
That's a good attitude because some day you will be old and likely sick. If you oppose helping the poor today, then it will probably do you harm tomorrow.

Just read my posts if you reply to them. I shouldn't need to repeat myself.

So, will you apologize to Tom for misunderstanding?

1. I didn't misunderstand anybody.
2. You didn't bother to read my post and got it wrong.
3. I'm not here to play games.

I'm not here to play games either, but your replies are sometimes confusing, just like any other poster's sometimes are. Your post was confusing to me because of the way it was worded and I did read it. I get the impression you can never admit that you're wrong about anything. Is it so hard to say, "Sorry you took my post the wrong way? That's not what I meant to imply"? But, I will say to you.... Sorry I misunderstood your post. I had the impression you were attacking Tom. It's very easy to misunderstand what someone means when they post here. I've been misunderstood but I don't take it personally.

Now it's your turn to admit that what you said could easily be misunderstood. Is that so hard?

There is nothing wrong with having or trying to have a good "work ethic". If someone becomes a criminal due to their work, they don't have a good work ethic. It's as simple as that.

There is nothing wrong with being unable to work due to a disability. My own father was on VA and SS disability from around the age of 50, due to severe PTSD secondary to brutal combat during WWII. He was physically able to do lots of things until his 70s, but he could no longer take the emotional stress of working. For years after being on disability, he got my mom to update his resume because work was so important to him, but he was never emotionally able to work again. He also suffered from bipolar disorder and anxiety. He could be mean and abusive, but it was easy for me to forgive him because I understood his disability, as well as how he had been treated by his own mentally ill mother as a child, much better than my two sisters did.

I'm well aware of the struggle that people endure when they are disabled. I cared for many of these folks during my own career. While my work was very stressful, I loved advocating for the people I served as a nurse, and they rewarded me by appreciating what I did for them. I don't think anyone here is judging you for being disabled.

You better hope that the medical professionals who you rely on for your medical care, have good work ethics or you could end up receiving care that lacks compassion and is incompetent. I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of bad care. I hope you've never experienced that and never do.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Some people take it too far and can't slow down and enjoy life. Some hard working people are corrupt.
But none of that is remotely like an indictment of the work ethic itself.

Did you know that the Nazis used propaganda attacking the disabled as a burden on the workers of society? The message was basically that since the disabled presumably didn't work, then they had negative value.

Yeah, but that's the Nazis, not the average person. Most people don't agree with this.

I hope you're right, but I'm not sure how what the majority of people think about the work ethic makes the work ethic good or bad. Are you saying that the work ethic is moral because only a minority of people are influenced by it to take it to its ultimate conclusion?

I believe people should contribute to society--but I recognize that not all actually can.

A good example of such persons might be men who are locked up on drug charges. How can they contribute to society when they live in cages? Even after they are paroled ex-cons may be unable to attain employment because employers reject them. My point is that society--and not necessarily something else--can make some people unable to contribute to society. The work ethic does not take this fact into account and I think deliberately so.

I do not feel those that can't have done anything wrong. Some people were dealt a bad hand in life and are a cost on society--but I think it's a cost society should willingly pay.

Actually, the cost of supporting disabled persons often is much lower than the cost of supporting the able-bodied. Many disabled persons live very "efficient" lifestyles. I live in a cramped apartment, and I have no vehicle doing almost no traveling. My "carbon footprint" is then no doubt well below average.

(Although I don't agree with everything they do in that regard--we spend a lot of effort on "educating" those who will never be able to meaningfully use whatever little knowledge they are able to absorb.)

Yes, it's very true that we educate people who never find gainful employment. I am one example of that fact. But it's only fair to point out that The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a law which was meant to help allow the disabled to find employment, goes largely unenforced. The ADA has either been ignored or actively opposed. So much of the blame for the unemployment of "the educated disabled" rests on the shoulders of those who have opposed the ADA.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm pretty sure you took what Tom said the wrong way. I got the impression that he meant that he has no problem with giving support to those who are disabled or sick. He can correct me if I'm the one who was wrong. But, if you reread his post, he said and I quote: "Most of us don't have a problem with supporting people with problems. Young/old, sick, whatever, I certainly don't have a problem with it. " You left that line out."

I didn't leave that line out. Here's my response:

Unknown Soldier:
That's a good attitude because some day you will be old and likely sick. If you oppose helping the poor today, then it will probably do you harm tomorrow.

Just read my posts if you reply to them. I shouldn't need to repeat myself.

So, will you apologize to Tom for misunderstanding?

1. I didn't misunderstand anybody.
2. You didn't bother to read my post and got it wrong.
3. I'm not here to play games.

I'm not here to play games either, but your replies are sometimes confusing, just like any other poster's sometimes are.

I don't know how I confused you on my reply to Tom. I'd recommend you reply to one part of a post at a time rather than quote the entire post in one big piece.

Your post was confusing to me because of the way it was worded and I did read it.

Again, I don't see what's confusing about my reply, but if you don't understand something I've posted, then you are welcome to ask me polite questions about it. And just for the record, I always make an effort to make my posts logical and factual, and I check my spelling and use proper capitalization and punctuation.

I get the impression you can never admit that you're wrong about anything.

Uh uh--what you're saying here this is a personal attack. It's irrelevant to the topic. Let's just discuss the morality of the work ethic please.

And I would encourage you to take your own advice. You made an error. I corrected you. Admit the error, accept the correction, and take care not to accuse others of what you have done.

Is it so hard to say, "Sorry you took my post the wrong way? That's not what I meant to imply"? But, I will say to you.... Sorry I misunderstood your post. I had the impression you were attacking Tom. It's very easy to misunderstand what someone means when they post here. I've been misunderstood but I don't take it personally.

Now it's your turn to admit that what you said could easily be misunderstood. Is that so hard?

Again, your comments here are irrelevant to the topic and I'd rather discuss the work ethic.

There is nothing wrong with having or trying to have a good "work ethic". If someone becomes a criminal due to their work, they don't have a good work ethic. It's as simple as that.

Here you're just asserting what you should be proving. Do you have reason or evidence to support these claims?

I don't think anyone here is judging you for being disabled.

Who said that they are?

You better hope that the medical professionals who you rely on for your medical care, have good work ethics or you could end up receiving care that lacks compassion and is incompetent.

I've had plenty of such care. I've never noticed that a lack of a work-ethic philosophy was the basis of poor health care. In fact, much of the research I've done into the issue points in the opposite direction. Nursing home workers tend to be overworked being overburdened with a lot of patients. Those long hours take their toll and can lead to burnout, neglect, and abuse.

I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of bad care. I hope you've never experienced that and never do.

One of my workers in particular inspired me to start this thread. She had a strong belief in a work ethic, and she accused me of being lazy and cheating the system. Oddly enough, she abused me that way while she should have been working.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not feel those that can't have done anything wrong. Some people were dealt a bad hand in life and are a cost on society--but I think it's a cost society should willingly pay.

Actually, the cost of supporting disabled persons often is much lower than the cost of supporting the able-bodied. Many disabled persons live very "efficient" lifestyles. I live in a cramped apartment, and I have no vehicle doing almost no traveling. My "carbon footprint" is then no doubt well below average.

But the able-bodied also produce. I'm talking about cost vs benefit, not merely total cost.

(Although I don't agree with everything they do in that regard--we spend a lot of effort on "educating" those who will never be able to meaningfully use whatever little knowledge they are able to absorb.)

Yes, it's very true that we educate people who never find gainful employment. I am one example of that fact. But it's only fair to point out that The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a law which was meant to help allow the disabled to find employment, goes largely unenforced. The ADA has either been ignored or actively opposed. So much of the blame for the unemployment of "the educated disabled" rests on the shoulders of those who have opposed the ADA.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about those so mentally disabled that they'll never even be able to care for themselves.

And of course people resist the ADA, it is a horrible law. The problem is it does not define "reasonable" and people have very different pictures of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Actually, the cost of supporting disabled persons often is much lower than the cost of supporting the able-bodied. Many disabled persons live very "efficient" lifestyles. I live in a cramped apartment, and I have no vehicle doing almost no traveling. My "carbon footprint" is then no doubt well below average.

But the able-bodied also produce. I'm talking about cost vs benefit, not merely total cost.

You should ensure that you consider the cost of crime and who commits those crimes in your cost/benefit analysis.

(Although I don't agree with everything they do in that regard--we spend a lot of effort on "educating" those who will never be able to meaningfully use whatever little knowledge they are able to absorb.)

Yes, it's very true that we educate people who never find gainful employment. I am one example of that fact. But it's only fair to point out that The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a law which was meant to help allow the disabled to find employment, goes largely unenforced. The ADA has either been ignored or actively opposed. So much of the blame for the unemployment of "the educated disabled" rests on the shoulders of those who have opposed the ADA.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about those so mentally disabled that they'll never even be able to care for themselves.

Let's try to educate people the best way we can and not give up because you are pessimistic.

And of course people resist the ADA, it is a horrible law. The problem is it does not define "reasonable" and people have very different pictures of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation.

I essentially agree with you here. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to replace the ADA with specific laws that cover well-defined issues.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Suppose my job is to trick atheist babies into committing suicide. I'm working really hard at it, like 80 hours per week, my wife complains I'm obsessing over it on the weekends and I should really stop taking my work home with me. I need to take a break and do a romantic weekend getaway or even "sexy lunchtime at home with her" in between babies. I keep missing little Jonnie's soccer games because if I can just get one more atheist baby to commit suicide, I can break the company record, and by that I mean my own record. Because those lazy bastards at work don't work as hard as I do at it.

I know you're being a wise acher, but yes, it's very possible to work hard at being a jerk.

Hey, don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say the hypothetical person was being a "jerk?"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about those so mentally disabled that they'll never even be able to care for themselves.

Let's try to educate people the best way we can and not give up because you are pessimistic.

I favor education for anyone capable of even partial self care, but what's the point for somebody who is never going to be anything but cared for?

And of course people resist the ADA, it is a horrible law. The problem is it does not define "reasonable" and people have very different pictures of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation.

I essentially agree with you here. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to replace the ADA with specific laws that cover well-defined issues.

Yup, it should give examples of things that are proper and things that are excessive and explicitly state that if the courts choose to put a new thing in the proper category that all existing "improper" examples are grandfathered.

 

[TomC]

One of my workers in particular inspired me to start this thread. She had a strong belief in a work ethic, and she accused me of being lazy and cheating the system. Oddly enough, she abused me that way while she should have been working.

If you treat her the way you treat people here on IIDB I can well understand why she doesn't like you, truth seeker.
Tom