Question Home |
Position:Home>Arts & Humanities> Do you believe laziness to be a natural vice of humanity?Question: Do you believe laziness to be a natural vice of humanity?... and if so, should social contract consider vices when freedoms/protections are to be enumerated? For example, some say that the creation of welfare as a protection of against poverty is immoral because humans would naturally exploit it to avoid working. What are your thoughts on this? I'm looking for a philosophical perspective, not political banter. Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: In my opinion, yes, laziness is a natural vice of humanity(and most species for that matter). Laziness is a vicious trait because the lazy believes they are conserving energy. The oversight is that no profit is deserved. Therefore, the lazy would naturally extinguish their own energy if it weren't for the fact that the lazy often leech off of other people's energy. In order to sustain balance energy should be cycled from the individual into the environment and back around to the individual. Ideally, the return on the invested energy should produce a profit. Therefore, the individual should be gaining ground over time if a reproducible cycle can be instantiated. For example, a job which pays the bills with extra money going into the bank afterwards. Ideally, social contract should consider vices, but the system becomes unwieldy if the society becomes to large to supervise the individual contingency; the one size fits all inefficiency. Even if the supervision remains aware to its constituents the issue is still complicated. How can the vices be moderated? Should an individual have their wages redirected if they buy too many hats on the premise that no one could need so many hats. Sounds overly restrictive to me. Should an individual have their wages redirected if they have a student loan that they have been avoiding payment on. It depends on the circumstances. Money is a one size fits all token. The premise is that the money is a proportional indicator of the contribution an individual has/is making to the society. Obviously, money is not always an objective measure. If you have read the Bible or other religious manuscripts there are many lessons on being a good neighbor, and most of them promote helping a neighbor in need. Not charging them an exorbitant amount of money for the aid provided. Therefore, following the lessons in the Bible might lead someone to own less currency, but donating services obviously improves and maintains society. The point being, large quantity of money ownership does not necessarily imply that the owner is entitled to vices. That said, ownership of large quantity of money doesn't imply that the owner has any vices. Quantities of money spent is a more appropriate indicator of vices; the frugal millionaire isn't labelled a glutton. Laziness being a state which can potentially afflict any member of humanity, the exploitation will likely be mutual in many different forms. Exploitation should be prosecuted judiciously with consideration to the circumstances of what any random member of humanity might be expected to do in a similar situation. |