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.