lazy or demotivated?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I 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.

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 per ...[text shortened]... ell end up producing better results because they're less stressed and more relaxed.

Those examples seem to fall under "work smarter not harder" yet using your brain is not lazy, it is just putting forth a defferent skill sets to a problem. In the end, if you are producing as best you can, you are not lazy.

Originally posted by StTito
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.

I said "extreme liberal strategy" not "liberal strategy."

I meant the word "extreme" as quite an important modifier; and dropping that modifier materially changes the meaning of my statement. I do not think most liberals would agree with the OP; which is a good thing, as it would be quite frightening if such a large group of people believed it.

Originally posted by twiceaknight
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.

Doesn't "demotivated" imply that it's someone else's fault, i.e. someone else removed the motivation, and thus it's someone else's job to supply the motivation? Lazy, on the other hand, implies a personal choice. If I am lazy, I have chosen not to do something, as opposed to some outside force sucking the motivation from me.

Originally posted by sh76
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.

Surprisingly condescending coming from you, as I've always seen you as one of the few openminded Conservatives.

No, he's not really speaking his true opinion. He's implementing some "Liberal strategy" to remove moral relevancy.

Originally posted by sh76
I said "extreme liberal strategy" not "liberal strategy."

I meant the word "extreme" as quite an important modifier; and dropping that modifier materially changes the meaning of my statement. I do not think most liberals would agree with the OP; which is a good thing, as it would be quite frightening if such a large group of people believed it.

Yes, because the concept of "laziness" is such a favorite topic for extreme Liberals. Are you actually being serious right now?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Yes, because the concept of "laziness" is such a favorite topic for extreme Liberals. Are you actually being serious right now?

Not laziness per se, but amoralism in general.

Ascribing laziness in all cases to lack of external or internal motivation is just one application of the over-all concept of amoralism.

Originally posted by sh76
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.

Actually i'm an employer (hopefully a fair one) with an interest in improving productivity/good service by giving people motivation, so you prejudged and misjudged my motivation from the start. I am interested in the topic and want to hear what people think of my recent thoughts on the subject. Not really an "extreme liberal strategy", more a small quest for knowledge and understanding of the world around me.

I felt that to suggest there is no such thing as laziness is at least "slightly controversial".

More importantly, I think you have missed the point. Your argument is based on someone thinking they "ought to do" it. This is motivation. A sense of duty is a motivational force. Your analogy of fighting a lack of motivation in this case would not be relevant because the motivational force required to "fight" the lack of motivation is apparently sufficient and therefore the person in question was by definition motivated (or had motivation) from the start. I'm talking about the people whose motivational forces are insufficient to do a task. Are they lazy or demotivated? This is my question.

If you don't see a sense of duty or morality as a motivational force, then it is not surprising that you fear deterministic reason and talk of "amorality". Responsibility for our actions and inactions is a motivational force in itself.

Irrespective of morality ethics, is the concept of laziness logically flawed?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
[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]

Yep. totally with you there.

Originally posted by sh76
That 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.

It depends. I think if you really believe in doing something you will be more than happy to give it 100 percent. If you don't, you probably won't. I don't think its about being a "bad person" at all.

I do not think most liberals would agree with the OP; which is a good thing, as it would be quite frightening if such a large group of people believed it.[/b]

But it wasn't controversial?

Originally posted by twiceaknight
Actually i'm an employer (hopefully a fair one) with an interest in improving productivity/good service by giving people motivation, so you prejudged and misjudged my motivation from the start. I am interested in the topic and want to hear what people think of my recent thoughts on the subject. Not really an "extreme liberal strategy", more a small ques ...[text shortened]... .

Irrespective of morality ethics, is the concept of laziness logically flawed?

If an appropriate sense of morality is included in the "motivation" that you speak of in your OP, then I am less inclined to disagree with you; but more inclined to wonder exactly what your point is and whether there are any practical ramifications at all in your original question.

You say that "lazy" is a criticism, clearly implying, I think, that "demotivated" is not a criticism. Now you say that "A sense of duty is a motivational force," and otherwise imply that lack of motivation is a criticism.

So, rather than speculate, I will put the question to you:

Is one's "lack of motivation" to do the right thing a criticism or merely a morally neutral product of circumstances?

Originally posted by sh76
Is one's "lack of motivation" to do the right thing a criticism or merely a morally neutral product of circumstances?

I don't have no intension to apply for an education in international economics at my local university.
Does this mean that I'm lazy, or does it mean that I'm having a lack of motivation?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't have no intension to apply for an education in international economics at my local university.
Does this mean that I'm lazy, or does it mean that I'm having a lack of motivation?

Applying for an education in international economics at your local university is a morally neutral thing to do. As such, I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. Of course it's based on lack of motivation. I never said there's no such thing as lack of motivation to do a particular task.

Originally posted by sh76
Not laziness per se, but amoralism in general.

Ascribing laziness in all cases to lack of external or internal motivation is just one application of the over-all concept of amoralism.

Is it logically possible for a liberal to claim that "morality" doesn't exist? A truly amoral person would be totally apathetic politically, since every "ism" involves some believing in (and usually arguing vehemently about) SOME set of moral standards. The more extremist you are, the more strongly you feel about those standards. An amoral person's politics would be limited to a very narrow and totally selfish "what's in it more me" kind of thing.

Originally posted by sh76
Not laziness per se, but amoralism in general.

Ascribing laziness in all cases to lack of external or internal motivation is just one application of the over-all concept of amoralism.

It sounds to me that you completely lack a fundamental misunderstanding of Liberal views. The whole "amoralism" concept is classic Limbaugh style strawman for Liberal ideals.

As Melanerpes pointed out, the very fact that Liberals even fight for causes indicates a clear set of moral values, even if those values conflict with Conservative ones.