16 Oct 09
I have a slightly controversial view that "laziness" does not really exist. People will always work hard/be busy if they can see good reason to, but will not do anything if they can't see the point or if it doesn't seem worth the effort. This is not laziness but a state of demotivation. There are many many demotivated people in this world, but none of them are "lazy."
The word "Lazy" is a criticism, whereas "demotivated" seems more of an attempt to understand the problem if there is one.
Even "lazy" animals such as cats are not lazy if they see a mouse, but they sit around all day doing nothing because they have no good reason to get up and do stuff.
To summarise, "laziness" does not exist. Discuss.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by twiceaknightYou are correct.
I have a slightly controversial view that "laziness" does not really exist. People will always work hard/be busy if they can see good reason to, but will not do anything if they can't see the point or if it doesn't seem worth the effort. This is not laziness but a state of demotivation. There are many many demotivated people in this world, but none of t ...[text shortened]... ason to get up and do stuff.
To summarise, "laziness" does not exist. Discuss.
Laziness is a term invented by people who want others to do what they want them to do.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by twiceaknightI thought I wanted to give my opinion about the subject, but writing a whole bunch of lines to explain, I don't know, not sure if it's worth it. Too much effort, too less result. So I don't... <yawn>
I have a slightly controversial view that "laziness" does not really exist. People will always work hard/be busy if they can see good reason to, but will not do anything if they can't see the point or if it doesn't seem worth the effort. This is not laziness but a state of demotivation. There are many many demotivated people in this world, but none of t ...[text shortened]... ason to get up and do stuff.
To summarise, "laziness" does not exist. Discuss.
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twiceaknightI think arguments like this are part of the greater extreme liberal strategy of taking morality out of society and taking all relevance from the concept of personal responsibility. You're trying to couch laziness as being morally neutral.
I have a slightly controversial view that "laziness" does not really exist. People will always work hard/be busy if they can see good reason to, but will not do anything if they can't see the point or if it doesn't seem worth the effort. This is not laziness but a state of demotivation. There are many many demotivated people in this world, but none of t ason to get up and do stuff.
To summarise, "laziness" does not exist. Discuss.
I also think that you call your view "slightly controversial" because deep in your mind, you know that it's not true; but it sounds good, so you go with it.
If you're not "motivated" to do something you know you ought to do, then you should fight your lack of motivation and force yourself to try to do it anyway. Allowing yourself to stay de-motivated, even if you call it that, is just another form of laziness; which is morally inferior to forcing yourself to do something that you know you ought to do.
Of course, the extreme manifestation of these types of theories is the Calvinistic view (now adopted by many atheists, ironically) that there is no free choice and that every action of every person is pre-determined from the outset of the Universe. A more morally degenerate or scary theory (in terms of what its widespread adoption would cause) has never existed.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76If you're not "motivated" to do something you know you ought to do, then you should fight your lack of motivation and force yourself to try to do it anyway. Allowing yourself to stay de-motivated, even if you call it that, is just another form of laziness; which is morally inferior to forcing yourself to do something that you know you ought to do.
I think arguments like this are part of the greater extreme liberal strategy of taking morality out of society and taking all relevance from the concept of personal responsibility. You're trying to couch laziness as being morally neutral.
I also think that you call your view "slightly controversial" because deep in your mind, you know that it's not true; but ...[text shortened]... or scary theory (in terms of what its widespread adoption would cause) has never existed.
but this would require the existence of a STRONG motivation to overcome the lack of motivation.
But what if this higher-level motivation is ALSO lacking?
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesThen you create whatever motivation is necessary because you understand that there is a moral imperative to do the right thing.
[b]If you're not "motivated" to do something you know you ought to do, then you should fight your lack of motivation and force yourself to try to do it anyway. Allowing yourself to stay de-motivated, even if you call it that, is just another form of laziness; which is morally inferior to forcing yourself to do something that you know you ought to do. ...[text shortened]... overcome the lack of motivation.
But what if this higher-level motivation is ALSO lacking?[/b]
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesThat motivation comes from moral fiber. If you lack the motivation to do what is morally correct, then you lack an appropriate sense of morality and you are morally deficient. In essence, you, in that limited sense, are a bad person; not just a person who lacks some morally neutral motivation.
But this requires that you have the motivation to "create whatever motivation is necessary..."
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76Liberal strategy? Really? You typically refrain from such broad sweeping and foolish statements. Consevatives have no monopoly on morality. Lazy is Lazy. I see it at work all the time, there is no political bent to it.
I think arguments like this are part of the greater extreme liberal strategy of taking morality out of society and taking all relevance from the concept of personal responsibility. You're trying to couch laziness as being morally neutral.
I also think that you call your view "slightly controversial" because deep in your mind, you know that it's not true; but ...[text shortened]... or scary theory (in terms of what its widespread adoption would cause) has never existed.
16 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by StTitoI think the point of the OP was that we tend to put too much value on "hard work" as if this by itself was a virtue and the failure to work hard was by itself a vice.
Liberal strategy? Really? You typically refrain from such broad sweeping and foolish statements. Consevatives have no monopoly on morality. Lazy is Lazy. I see it at work all the time, there is no political bent to it.
The real issue is whether or not a person is producing the results they are responsible for producing. For example - you are a baseball player and you are being paid a lot of money to perform at your best. No one is paying you to "work hard" - they're paying you to perform at a peak level. Clearly, this entails doing a certain amount of training. But by the time an athlete has gone pro, he generally knows what will produce optimal results. It's very possible to work too much or too hard - and the result is injury or burn-out. As such, working too hard is just as irresponsible as working too little.
The same applies to any other job. An employee is being paid to do a certain job - and as long as they're doing everything that is expected of them, it doesn't matter how "hard they work" or how "lazy" they are. The lazy person may very well end up producing better results because they're less stressed and more relaxed.