Is the work ethic ethical?

[Unknown Soldier]

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

Thank you very much for that criticism and advice, Tom. I will keep your words of wisdom in mind in the future as I interact with you and the other people here at IIDB. After all, as I get the truth out to you and everybody else, I need to keep the truth about myself in mind too.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...as I get the truth out to you and everybody else....

If you imagine your activities can best be described as getting the truth out as opposed to honestly open-mindedly inquiring about things, then shouldn't your basic belief be "truth speaker," instead of "truth seeker?"

 

[Unknown Soldier]

...as I get the truth out to you and everybody else....

If you imagine your activities can best be described as getting the truth out as opposed to honestly open-mindedly inquiring about things...

Would you say you honestly and with an open mind inquire about things? I surely do. I just think it's really foolish to believe what is false.

...then shouldn't your basic belief be "truth speaker," instead of "truth seeker?"

There's no reason why anybody cannot be both, and I am both.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The work ethic is too generalized and nebulous to be a well thought-out ethical position.

It's more ethical to consider the next level down. So to repeat from earlier post:

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?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

I'm not sure if you are taking a strawman version of the work ethic or not because there is some kind of nebulous work ethic that isn't well thought-out like I wrote before. BUT in terms of an individual, one would think her complaint was based on a perception that you were not putting in your fair share. Humans look for fairness in systems. It's a value. So do primates as well, but not to the same extent since we have very complex systems. If you are looking at porn on your phone while you are on the clock while she's providing all the customer support, then you're not doing your fair share. It's not a contradiction for her to take a minute break to scold you because it's an attempt to get you more in alignment with future fairness, i.e. it is a minimum deviation or cost to optimize future ethical adherence. Now, I'm not saying you were looking at porn at work (or worse, FACEBOOK!), and maybe she was being unfair because you actually were doing your fair share as much as you were able. If you were, then okay, tell her that and move on to do your work. No need to start a whole thread over it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

I'm not sure if you are taking a strawman version of the work ethic or not because there is some kind of nebulous work ethic that isn't well thought-out like I wrote before.

Just understand the work ethic as it is defined in Wikipedia and as cited and quoted in the OP.

BUT in terms of an individual, one would think her complaint was based on a perception that you were not putting in your fair share.

Knowing Debbie, I think she just resented having wages taxed and that money going to help those who are unemployed. She clearly had a problem with the disabled and said that she "couldn't deal" with disability. It then came as no surprise to me she became abusive with me.

Humans look for fairness in systems. It's a value. So do primates as well, but not to the same extent since we have very complex systems.

Humans also look for ways to cheat systems. If unpopular laws are on the books, like laws prohibiting unfair discrimination against unpopular groups, people can always rationalize disobeying those laws by skewering those whom such laws are meant to protect. That's exactly what happened to The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and Debbie was totally against the ADA.

If you are looking at porn on your phone while you are on the clock while she's providing all the customer support, then you're not doing your fair share. It's not a contradiction for her to take a minute break to scold you because it's an attempt to get you more in alignment with future fairness, i.e. it is a minimum deviation or cost to optimize future ethical adherence. Now, I'm not saying you were looking at porn at work (or worse, FACEBOOK!), and maybe she was being unfair because you actually were doing your fair share as much as you were able. If you were, then okay, tell her that...

The truth is that I literally worked with Debbie doing some of the work she should have done, yet she lied about me claiming that I wouldn't work.

...and move on to do your work.

I had to move on to do my work because she wasn't doing it.

No need to start a whole thread over it...

It's the strangest thing about this forum: People keep complaining about my threads only to participate in them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Obviously you have a problem with Debbie and perhaps she is not fair to you. You should start a thread in Support Fireside.

 

[Bronzeage]

Another discussion with poorly defined terms. This is like arguing that honesty is bad because an honest answer to "Do these pants make my ass look big? may hurt someone's feelings.

 

[Gospel]

Work ethic serves as a intrinsically beneficial foundation, complications emerge when these principles are misappropriated or mishandled by some individuals. To draw an analogy, consider work ethic as a hammer—a tool designed for constructive purposes, such as assembling a chair through the joining of wood pieces. In this context, the hammer fulfills its positive, intended function. However, if another individual employs the same hammer for a violent assault, the issue lies not with the hammer itself, but with the person wielding it and their harmful intentions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Work ethic serves as a intrinsically beneficial foundation, complications emerge when these principles are misappropriated or mishandled by some individuals. To draw an analogy, consider work ethic as a hammer—a tool designed for constructive purposes, such as assembling a chair through the joining of wood pieces. In this context, the hammer fulfills its positive, intended function. However, if another individual employs the same hammer for a violent assault, the issue lies not with the hammer itself, but with the person wielding it and their harmful intentions.

I wonder if a better analogy might be a gun?

 

[Gospel]

The effectiveness of an analogy hinges primarily on the writer's proficiency and has minimal, if any, correlation with the chosen subject of the analogy itself. Ultimately, the objective is to elucidate a concept or idea. It appears to me that you're suggesting your comprehension of the original analogy was clear, making the proposition to reframe it using a firearm instead of a hammer superfluous. Moreover, I anticipate that such a change would not enhance the analogy; rather, it might sidetrack the conversation into a potentially contentious debate on firearms. As such I highly doubt a gun would make a better analogy.

 

[TomC]

As such I highly doubt a gun would make a better analogy.

Hammer is definitely a better analogy. Hammers have many useful, peaceful, purposes. In the modern world they're lousy weapons.
Especially compared to the options, like guns and knives.

The work ethic is so consistently a good thing.
It can be ignored. It can be abused. But it's consistently better than the other options.

There are weird exceptions, sorta. People with issues with demands for work tailored specifically to their preferences.

That seems to be the point to this thread. "Debbie from work" was more honest with OP than he preferred. She referred to the work ethic. OP doesn't have a supportable reason for contradicting Debbie on the subject.
So he attacks the concept of Work Ethic.

And here we are. Those of us still responding to the OP.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The effectiveness of an analogy hinges primarily on the writer's proficiency and has minimal, if any, correlation with the chosen subject of the analogy itself. Ultimately, the objective is to elucidate a concept or idea. It appears to me that you're suggesting your comprehension of the original analogy was clear, making the proposition to reframe it using a firearm instead of a hammer superfluous. Moreover, I anticipate that such a change would not enhance the analogy; rather, it might sidetrack the conversation into a potentially contentious debate on firearms. As such I highly doubt a gun would make a better analogy.

But the last point was the point. The contentiousness of guns is because of how often their use is not positive or at least there's a lot of attention paid to it such as for unnecessary wars, for murder, etc. If we look at what moral choices lie behind jobs, like say working at Walmart, Amazon, Facebook, a countless number of Enron-like startups, or a cog in the machine for the military industrial complex, there's something in common there. People need a job for survival, generally speaking and are willing to be in denial or at least not even consider the moral implications of their own jobs. It wasn't really intended to be superfluous but instead to challenge the main thesis that the work ethic is morally good. As I wrote before, I'd rather throw it out and look one level down, to say it depends on the nature of your work and the extent to which you ought to contribute is whether you are doing your "fair share" as long as you are able and there is a cost-benefit to your family to consider.

 

[Gospel]

To ensure that I accurately grasp your stance, it seems you are suggesting that the ethical implications of work ethic are contingent upon various factors, such as the context in which it is applied, and the nature of the work itself. You also appear to advocate for the use of guns as an analogy, as you believe they better capture the complexities involved, in contrast to hammers.

While I comprehend your previous argument, I want to clarify that it does not contradict my assertion that work ethic, in and of itself, is not inherently problematic. Rather, complications arise from the ways in which it is interpreted and applied by individuals and society. I propose that instead of attributing any moral or ethical outcomes solely to the concept of work ethic, we should scrutinize and address the underlying factors that contribute to its perception as either moral or immoral, evaluating each situation on its own merits. Ultimately, a hammer or gun remains a tool for construction or hunting respectively, and it does not transform into an instrument of unwarranted violence without external influence or deliberate misuse.

Lastly, while I maintain my stance that a hammer serves as a more apt analogy than a gun, I believe delving into that debate may divert us from our current, more captivating discussion.

 

[Bronzeage]

Work ethic serves as a intrinsically beneficial foundation, complications emerge when these principles are misappropriated or mishandled by some individuals. To draw an analogy, consider work ethic as a hammer—a tool designed for constructive purposes, such as assembling a chair through the joining of wood pieces. In this context, the hammer fulfills its positive, intended function. However, if another individual employs the same hammer for a violent assault, the issue lies not with the hammer itself, but with the person wielding it and their harmful intentions.

The great Philosopher Mendacious said, "There is nothing so noble it can't be corrupted by a human."

Human survival is totally dependent on cooperation with other humans. The modern technological age has obscured this fact, but it remains true. In the 1930s, French anthropologist Gontran de Poncins spent several years living with the Inuit people of Arctic Canada. He wrote that there are no lonely Inuit. It's not possible. One person can hunt and provide food for several people. One person can make clothes for several people. Both are critical to survival, but no person can do both for themselves. The harsh climate of the Arctic makes this plain to see, but it's true of all human society.

Cooperation is efficient because it means no one is duplicating the labor of someone else and all benefit. The key to this is reliability. or as we might call it, "work ethic". A reliable person performs the tasks expected of them and does them well enough no one worries about it. The caribou is dinner one day and a jacket the next. Everyone is fed and warm. Everyone is rewarded for their cooperation.

Modern life has made it possible to fail to cooperate without the grave consequences of starving or freezing to death. It's common for one person to expect fresh caribou from someone else, but they aren't going to spend a minute scraping a caribou hide. The person who sewed the caribou jacket is told, next week we want two jackets, but for no additional caribou steak.

This has been reality ever since humans started to live in large enough groups in small areas to need some kind of management. For the first time, there was someone whose contribution wasn't hunting anything or gathering anything. They made sure everybody else was hunting and gathering or making clothes and cooking. If everyone cooperates and is reliable, there's enough surplus to feed and clothe the nonproductive person who writes the schedule.

And there's the rub. The manager, whether we call him/her a chief, priest, king, or CEO, depends on reliability, or work ethic. Without the surplus, there can be no chief, priest, king, or CEO. Corruptible human nature dictates that it will be abused by some.

 

[rousseau]

This has been reality ever since humans started to live in large enough groups in small areas to need some kind of management. For the first time, there was someone whose contribution wasn't hunting anything or gathering anything. They made sure everybody else was hunting and gathering or making clothes and cooking. If everyone cooperates and is reliable, there's enough surplus to feed and clothe the nonproductive person who writes the schedule.

And there's the rub. The manager, whether we call him/her a chief, priest, king, or CEO, depends on reliability, or work ethic. Without the surplus, there can be no chief, priest, king, or CEO. Corruptible human nature dictates that it will be abused by some.

I'd call most managers I know productive, it's just that as businesses become more complex some of the work involves organizing and supervising. Bureaucracy. I work for an organization that employs 15 000 people across a diverse set of roles. That is stunning complexity. I can't imagine such an enterprise functioning without managers.

To call these people unproductive sounds like a pejorative to me. Some will abuse their position, but that can be true of any position, on any level.

 

[Bronzeage]

This has been reality ever since humans started to live in large enough groups in small areas to need some kind of management. For the first time, there was someone whose contribution wasn't hunting anything or gathering anything. They made sure everybody else was hunting and gathering or making clothes and cooking. If everyone cooperates and is reliable, there's enough surplus to feed and clothe the nonproductive person who writes the schedule.

And there's the rub. The manager, whether we call him/her a chief, priest, king, or CEO, depends on reliability, or work ethic. Without the surplus, there can be no chief, priest, king, or CEO. Corruptible human nature dictates that it will be abused by some.

I'd call most managers I know productive, it's just that as businesses become more complex some of the work involves organizing and supervising. Bureaucracy. I work for an organization that employs 15 000 people across a diverse set of roles. That is stunning complexity. I can't imagine such an enterprise functioning without managers.

To call these people unproductive sounds like a pejorative to me. Some will abuse their position, but that can be true of any position, on any level.

It certainly couldn't function without managers, but managers only exist because the managed produce more than they need for themselves. I used to work on cars. It's the kind of business where at the end of the day, I knew exactly how much money went into the cash register because of the work I did. I made the mistake of going into management. From that point forward, my pay was a percentage of the money all the other mechanics put into the cash register. I did not produce any of that money. Managers are needed because they make production more efficient, but they do not produce anything, themselves.

 

[rousseau]

This has been reality ever since humans started to live in large enough groups in small areas to need some kind of management. For the first time, there was someone whose contribution wasn't hunting anything or gathering anything. They made sure everybody else was hunting and gathering or making clothes and cooking. If everyone cooperates and is reliable, there's enough surplus to feed and clothe the nonproductive person who writes the schedule.

And there's the rub. The manager, whether we call him/her a chief, priest, king, or CEO, depends on reliability, or work ethic. Without the surplus, there can be no chief, priest, king, or CEO. Corruptible human nature dictates that it will be abused by some.

I'd call most managers I know productive, it's just that as businesses become more complex some of the work involves organizing and supervising. Bureaucracy. I work for an organization that employs 15 000 people across a diverse set of roles. That is stunning complexity. I can't imagine such an enterprise functioning without managers.

To call these people unproductive sounds like a pejorative to me. Some will abuse their position, but that can be true of any position, on any level.

It certainly couldn't function without managers, but managers only exist because the managed produce more than they need for themselves. I used to work on cars. It's the kind of business where at the end of the day, I knew exactly how much money went into the cash register because of the work I did. I made the mistake of going into management. From that point forward, my pay was a percentage of the money all the other mechanics put into the cash register. I did not produce any of that money. Managers are needed because they make production more efficient, but they do not produce anything, themselves.

That's true. I guess it seems like managers don't always get a fair shake to me. There was a time in my career where I thought managers should be lateral to workers, but the further I go in the software industry the more appreciation I have for what they do, and the skills they have.

My direct lead manages the work of 7 developers, my manager keeps tabs on the work of 35 people. They both lead meetings and sit in calls where their leadership and expertise are needed. Personally, I wouldn't say that the causality flows any particular way. The cause of management is really the success / complexity of the enterprise at large. When an organization scales it's going to become hierarchical.

It's true that the initial drive is ground-level productivity, but when complexity is added I'd call everyone an equal partner in that productivity.

 

[bilby]

When an organization scales it's going to become hierarchical.

Does that necessarily apply to all organisations?

If so, what does it say about how nation states are (necessarily) managed?

It looks to me like an argument for dictatorship (or even for the feudalistic variety of dictatorship: Absolute Monarchy, with a hierarchical aristocracy. The CEO is king; His board of princes and dukes tell the counts, earls, viscounts, and barons what to do, and the peasants do the actual work).

It's always struck me as odd that the people who are most powerful "captains of industry", simultaneously say that countries should be democratic regimes run by consensus, with a free market economy that uses money to signal priorities for action; While operating companies that are totalitarian, top down hierarchies, with central planning that prioritises action based on the edicts of those at the top of the heap.

I have yet to hear a truly convincing argument that explains how these positions are not, in fact, contradictory. A country may not be much like a small business; But it's really not hugely different from a large and diverse corporation.

 

[rousseau]

When an organization scales it's going to become hierarchical.

Does that necessarily apply to all organisations?

If so, what does it say about how nation states are (necessarily) managed?

It looks to me like an argument for dictatorship (or even for the feudalistic variety of dictatorship: Absolute Monarchy, with a hierarchical aristocracy. The CEO is king; His board of princes and dukes tell the counts, earls, viscounts, and barons what to do, and the peasants do the actual work).

It's always struck me as odd that the people who are most powerful "captains of industry", simultaneously say that countries should be democratic regimes run by consensus, with a free market economy that uses money to signal priorities for action; While operating companies that are totalitarian, top down hierarchies, with central planning that prioritises action based on the edicts of those at the top of the heap.

I have yet to hear a truly convincing argument that explains how these positions are not, in fact, contradictory. A country may not be much like a small business; But it's really not hugely different from a large and diverse corporation.

A corporation is different in that those at the top have the same vested interest in the company as everyone else. Yes they have outsized influence, but most of the time their interests should serve everyone else in the company too. The extent that they can abuse their power is usually limited, because they don't want the org to crumble or to lose their legitimacy to lead. And workers have the freedom to leave. I'd call this situation a kind of pseudo-democracy, but a more apt analogy might be to call it a 'modern tribe'.

An authoritarian state is a much wider conversation, and often times is the result of social dynamics rather than an intentional project. Democratic states are actually more unusual because they're harder to set in place.