Poll: Is working an inherently good thing?
Poll Options
View poll results: Is working an inherently good thing?
yes
12 43%
no
10 36%
why
3 11%
not sure . . .
3 11%
Voters: 28.
Page 1 of 3
#1
let's get all puritan yo


does working have inherent merit? is it righteous to work?


can you answer that or kant you?
Quote by EndTheRapture51
hard sciences don't have correct and incorrect answers actually
#2
Nothing you do has merit.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#3
no
mugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmug
#4
 mer·itˈmerət/noun
  1. 1.the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward."composers of outstanding merit"synonyms:excellence, quality, caliber, worth, worthiness, credit, value, distinction, eminence"composers of outstanding merit"


does the act of "working'" deserve merit? only if it is of high caliber or worthy
if you put in quality work, shouldn't you be credited for doing so, either by pay/reward/raise or by a distinguished award/certificate?
sure, why not, i think everything in life has an incentive, especially "working" a job... 
however, if you get simple enjoyment from "working" then you don't need or want any merit for it... 
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
There shall be a stop to this madness. The battle is not over. My tasty licks aren't going anywhere.

Quote by The_Blode
^ I've just realised if you say Simple Plan's 2011 effort "Get Your Heart On!" really fast in a Southern American accent, it sounds gross. . .like sexual gross!

Quote by Necroheadbanger
Hello.
I'm looking for professional bongo-ists and triangle-ists to make a Progressive Technical Brutal Death Metal band
(will be called AxOxJxLxAxIxVxXxUxWxZxQxUxRxWxGxJxSxAxLxKxMxNxHxUxGxAxAxWxVxCxBxZxVx)
(Don't even ask what it means)


https://soundcloud.com/95dank



#5
Work is bollox.
We should all stay home and grow our own food and trade for meats etc.
Fuck the system and the mass produced foods full of sugar and salt.
The world and the pit were better in the old days.

Edit: Also, beer should be free because of all the hard work we do.
#6
Quote by UltimateGuizar
Work is bollox.
We should all stay home and grow our own food and trade for meats etc.
Fuck the system and the mass produced foods full of sugar and salt.
The world and the pit were better in the old days.

But then you'd be working the fields and trading with hardworking hunters

Might as well just die


Should just let the super rich have free reign over the world under the condition they design and maintain robots to feed us and jerk our gherkins 
One of the third friendliest users
Stratkat's pet


Quote by Momentosis
Void is a wanker that's why

#7
Relative merit? Quite possibly.

Inherent merit? No.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#8
the question is predicated first by defining what we mean when we say work.  Then, after studying our empirical foundation on the definition of work and how that may or may not align with how we objectively define it, we can begin to discuss if righteousness even exists.

Depending on your interpretation of the works (bud dum bum) of a certain philosopher (*cough cough ^), work could be defined as inherently good, because moral goodness is the product of being duty bound and bound to duty, regardless of ones enjoyment or self-fulfillment.  "Goodness" (moral worth) comes not from the results or consequences of actions, but by the motivation for the actions.  In this string of thought, being a good person becomes the function of doing the action you were meant to or required to, even if you do not want to or enjoy it (this is why a preference is placed on the motivation vs. the outcome).  For this reason, if we derive our moral goodness out of doing our duty even if we do not want to and regardless of the outcome, then our actions are righteous, and if our actions are righteous, then the subject we are acting upon (work) becomes inherently good.  
"I definitely don’t write all my music in a blackout, like I used to, although I did come up with some good stuff in a blackout."
-Matt Fucking Pike
#9
Ask a community if NEETs about work and get a bunch of NEET answers.
#12
It's only righteous if you do something useful for society
I have nothing important to say
#13
Quote by JustRooster
Ask a community if NEETs about work and get a bunch of NEET answers.


What's a neet
My God, it's full of stars!
#15
Quote by Badluckpalms
the question is predicated first by defining what we mean when we say work.  Then, after studying our empirical foundation on the definition of work and how that may or may not align with how we objectively define it, we can begin to discuss if righteousness even exists.

Depending on your interpretation of the works (bud dum bum) of a certain philosopher (*cough cough ^), work could be defined as inherently good, because moral goodness is the product of being duty bound and bound to duty, regardless of ones enjoyment or self-fulfillment.  "Goodness" (moral worth) comes not from the results or consequences of actions, but by the motivation for the actions.  In this string of thought, being a good person becomes the function of doing the action you were meant to or required to, even if you do not want to or enjoy it (this is why a preference is placed on the motivation vs. the outcome).  For this reason, if we derive our moral goodness out of doing our duty even if we do not want to and regardless of the outcome, then our actions are righteous, and if our actions are righteous, then the subject we are acting upon (work) becomes inherently good.  

let's define work as doing a task that you don't derive enjoyment from
Quote by EndTheRapture51
hard sciences don't have correct and incorrect answers actually
#16
Call me Charlie & the Chocolate Factory cuz I put in work on that booty.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#17
Quote by JackSaints
It's only righteous if you do something useful for society

But, what if you believe that what you're doing is useful, but it isn't actually? Like when you were one of the people warning for 2012 or something. I'd say the effort made for something you believe is good is meritous on its own.
#18
Quote by Badluckpalms
the question is predicated first by defining what we mean when we say work.  Then, after studying our empirical foundation on the definition of work and how that may or may not align with how we objectively define it, we can begin to discuss if righteousness even exists.

Depending on your interpretation of the works (bud dum bum) of a certain philosopher (*cough cough ^), work could be defined as inherently good, because moral goodness is the product of being duty bound and bound to duty, regardless of ones enjoyment or self-fulfillment.  "Goodness" (moral worth) comes not from the results or consequences of actions, but by the motivation for the actions.  In this string of thought, being a good person becomes the function of doing the action you were meant to or required to, even if you do not want to or enjoy it (this is why a preference is placed on the motivation vs. the outcome).  For this reason, if we derive our moral goodness out of doing our duty even if we do not want to and regardless of the outcome, then our actions are righteous, and if our actions are righteous, then the subject we are acting upon (work) becomes inherently good.  


can we not
My God, it's full of stars!
#19
Quote by Dreadnought
What's a neet


"A NEET or neet is a young person who is "Not in Education, Employment, or Training."

Mostly a European political term to easily describe a demographic that has become a derogatory phrase used by those who are in the traditional workforce or in traditional education.
#20
StewieSwan One of my favorite writers said "our needs interpret the world."  This was speaking to the idea that knowledge isn't objective, and while "universal truths" can be known, they can also be interpreted.  I typically situate my own thoughts along this paradigm.

I think work can be inherently good if the individual believes work to be good, OR, that work is good for the person or community regardless of the work being good.  Here enters the cultural variable.  Many of us have been raised (*educated, made aware...) within a societal context that work is a necessary evil.  So then, we approach this conversation without objectivity because we've already conditioned the concept of work as a function of our survival, and further, as the antithesis of our autonomous leanings (which too are a product of our environment and history).

We can define good as the product of appealing to this necessary evil for the sake of survival, but for me this trends too closely to a religious and humanist perspective.  The idea that you are good, or your actions are good, for the sake of preserving your life or the life of another negates free will - because the motive is not survival on it's own, rather because doctrine dictates that moral value is the product of pursuing survival (life vs death, life was "given," we are indebted to preserve it and respect it, our actions during life = our quality of afterlife).  I should say that I do find a distinction between survival and life, but even outside of the alive vs dead duality, quality of life too can be the foundation for the term "survival."  

With this on the table, I do not believe that working for the sake of survival equals goodness because I do not believe we are indebted to preserve ourselves.  

Re-enter "work."  If not for survival, then what for?  I believe work is an enabler.  It enables us to acquire.  It enables us to lead a particular quality of life.  Some people escape a less than satisfying home life (or perhaps a bad home life) by going to work - but you could say that work in itself is enabling the person to a lack of action and remain in said situation that leads to a low quality of life by providing a temporary escape.  Further, it enables (or forces perhaps) us to temporarily become someone different, forget, mask our creativity and true personalities.  More interesting I think, is the concept of "blind prosperity," where we seek out prosperity because we believe we are inherently non-prosperous - consider being young and setting goals and executing goals and with age comes success.  This isn't wholly financial - prosperity could be defined as the product of becoming educated, being self aware, reaching "enlightenment," etc.  The concept of being blind arrives because the story is posited on the notion that we are have-nots before we can be the haves.  

The difference is the line between "I did WXY and that made me prosperous (Z)", versus "I'm prosperous (Z) because I did WXY."  Work is often viewed through the lens of "I'm prosperous because I did WXY."  We are macro thinkers and we do whatever we have to do to make Z a realization.  The issue I take with this is "Z" is often a conditioned ideal that we had no say in creating, and further, is not a universal truth.  We come into the world, we are taught what Z is depending on our macro and micro environment, then we commit to WXY to gain Z.  Work is a function of this equation, and I do not believe anything to be inherently good about doing something because we are inherently lacking.  

Also, I might be a little full of shit at this point. 
"I definitely don’t write all my music in a blackout, like I used to, although I did come up with some good stuff in a blackout."
-Matt Fucking Pike
#21
Quote by Dreadnought
can we not

probably shouldn't 
"I definitely don’t write all my music in a blackout, like I used to, although I did come up with some good stuff in a blackout."
-Matt Fucking Pike
#22
ok gonzaw 
Quote by EndTheRapture51
hard sciences don't have correct and incorrect answers actually
#23
Yes. I believe that our downtime and entertainment is necessary for our well being, but true fulfillment can only be found in work.
#24
I'd like to point out that I wasn't the philosophy nerd in this particular thread.

also
Quote by StewieSwan
let's define work as doing a task that you don't derive enjoyment from
I call my creative projects work and I enjoy it It's definitely work work, but I still get the kicks from it
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#26
Quote by Banjocal
I'd like to point out that I wasn't the philosophy nerd in this particular thread.

also I call my creative projects work and I enjoy it It's definitely work work, but I still get the kicks from it

I do as well, but from a puritanical standpoint I think that if you are enjoying it it is considered recreation and not work
Quote by EndTheRapture51
hard sciences don't have correct and incorrect answers actually
#27
Quote by neidnarb11890
not if you are a cuck who works for the state lmao am I right??

I'm at work rn. sucking up them sweet taxes
Quote by EndTheRapture51
hard sciences don't have correct and incorrect answers actually
#28
it has merit towards the thing you are working towards
"I specialize in driving a set like I'm driving a Lexus" - Uncle Mez
#29
Quote by StewieSwan

can you answer that or kant you?

get out of here with your excellent philosophy puns
You are now using UG Black.
You are now using UG Classic.


Listening to: Duke Ellington


I'm sick and tired of people calling America the stupidest country in the world. I personally think Europe is the stupidest country.
#30
Quote by StewieSwan
I do as well, but from a puritanical standpoint I think that if you are enjoying it it is considered recreation and not work
Good thing I'm not dumb enough to take a puritanical standpoint then eh
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#31
Life can never be truly meritocratic, so no.

Work can be good for us, but like all things in life there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
#32
Quote by JackSaints
It's only righteous if you do something useful for society
Truth right here.

Getting paid to do your job isn't as deserving of merit as having a passion that gives back to society. Difference being, the latter isn't forced.
Quote by SGstriker
If KFC is finger-licking good, then people would probably suck dicks for Popeyes. That's how good it is.


There's nothing left here to be saved
Just barreling dogs and barking trains
Another year lost to the blue line
#33
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Life can never be truly meritocratic, so no.

Work can be good for us, but like all things in life there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

Except for guacamole. You can never have too much guacamole.
You are now using UG Black.
You are now using UG Classic.


Listening to: Duke Ellington


I'm sick and tired of people calling America the stupidest country in the world. I personally think Europe is the stupidest country.
#34
Quote by Wolfinator-x
Except for guacamole. You can never have too much guacamole.


I once had nachos that had more guacamole than nachos, like you couldn't even pick any nachos up because they were hidden under the mountain of guacamole

It was possibly too much guacamole but even then I think you're right
#35
Quote by Bladez22
I once had nachos that had more guacamole than nachos, like you couldn't even pick any nachos up because they were hidden under the mountain of guacamole

It was possibly too much guacamole but even then I think you're right

That's when to break out the crudités, man.
You are now using UG Black.
You are now using UG Classic.


Listening to: Duke Ellington


I'm sick and tired of people calling America the stupidest country in the world. I personally think Europe is the stupidest country.
#37
Quote by neptune1988
it troubles me that poeple would even have to ask this question...


Yeah, "work makes free", right?
My God, it's full of stars!
#39
Anyways, serious answer:

"Work" is relative to whatever system you define it in. A capitalistic system defines work pretty concisely and structuredly. However, imagine a post-scarcity fully-automated communist system, what is "work" there?

You just have physical and mental actions and efforts. In some systems those are called "leisure", in others they are called "hobbies", in others they are called "work", in others they are just "stuff you do". Depending on the system, and depending on what that system redefines those actions as, what those actions entail, both on your wellbeing, on the wellbeing of society, or on any other possible frame and context you want to put them in.

If you have the action "playing football", you might play football with your friends without pressure; or play it as a hobby (without getting paid) but playing in a team in a championship; or you might play it as a job, getting paid for it. In our society only the last one is "work", but how is it any different from the others? Yes, if you state it as "work" it means you are gettting paid for trying to get an objective (bring more money to the club, gain more trophies, etc), and that way the action is framed has lots of implications that affect how you might see the worth of such actions (e.g you may not like the pressure of trying to gain trophies because you know if you don't win them you won't get paid and will get fired). However, playing football as a hobby also has a pressure, you also want to win the championship and play well, even if you don't get paid for it; does it mean it's as bad as "work"? And is playing football with friends better just because there is no pressure and you have fun? But you can also have fun in the other cases, as long as you can manage that pressure well (or just not be affected by it, like a stoic).
Even then, which one of the above has "inherent worth"? Based on the above description it seems impossible to compare one above the other on what worth they have. And if you state things like "it has worth if it has value for society" you might even say none of those above have any worth (they are just entertainment).

TL;DR: no
#40
I think that having things to do that require some sort of effort (physical, mental, whatever) with some form of goal or payoff has merit for the human psychology. Whether or not that's 'work' is debatable. Even if it's just a hobby or whatever, we need something to occupy our time and fulfill our desire to do, but it has to be engaging or else you're just working for the payout while hating every minute of it and burning yourself out. The job I have currently is definitely work, but it's not fulfilling, it's not engaging, I get no satisfaction or feeling of accomplishment. I want to have things to do and goals to accomplish, but not those things. Others may find my job enjoyable, or at least acceptable - it's really not that bad - but it's not suited for me at all. I think work in general has merit, but not all work for every person. Some work can be detrimental to the person doing the work.

Same on a more macro scale - work has merit on a societal level of getting shit done, but then there's some work being done that is having the opposite effect - though of course which is which is open for interpretation. Really, on every level you could think of work as simply doing things - effecting change on your environment, positive or negative. So, does causality have merit? Hell, if you carry it all the way down to physics (work) then no work being done means maximum entropy - everything is in equilibrium, so nothing happens. I personally think that things happening has merit. So there we go, work has merit.
Last edited by The4thHorsemen at Jul 3, 2017,
Page 1 of 3