- 14 Jan 2017 08:05
#14763118
Today, many people would say that if you do not work, you are not a "good" person. This can seem strange if one considers that most jobs these days are divorced from human survival and often from any fundamental value of any kind. A person who "works" in the sales department of a widget factory is a "good person" because he works, someone who does not work is presumed to be a "bad person" solely because he does not work. Despite these presumptions, when the widgets made by Widgets Inc. are not actually important in any tangible way, one might still find themselves asking whether working in the sales department can, in of itself, make someone into a good person.
If we consider traditional values, work was originally acknowledged as being something that rational people wanted to avoid doing too much of. But work was also associated with human survival, so those who were "good" were usually found working, particularly as the dilemmas associated with slavery mounted (previously, the dilemma wherein one doesn't want to work but work must be done and getting it done is "good" was sometimes solved by making other people do the work). Ultimately, the traditional values that viewed any kind of drudgery as a metaphysical stigma were supplanted by new forms of traditional values (particularly in Protestant Christianity) that viewed work as a noble sacrifice.
What we see then is that the concept of being a "good person" and "doing good" were conflated into working. This happened because working resulted in good things for people. Today, the idea of working is being divested from all other moral values, meaning that a person can be "bad" in practically every way but so long as they work hard, they may still be considered "good" by many people.
While this is a problem that people will need to assess as jobs are "lost" to automation, instead of discussing it and the future I would prefer to go even further back because I think it is in the past where the real answer to this dilemma can be found. We will eventually have to accept that "working" is not always good in of itself, only being good is good in of itself. But what is being good?
The earliest philosophies generally did not distinguish between "good and evil" in the first place. Instead they talked about the metaphysical unity of all things and the goal of spiritual transcendence. The concept of "good and evil" was an easy method for explaining the quest for transcendence: things that encouraged one to transcend their selfish individual existence, such as meditation and charity, were "good" while things that did not encourage transcendence were "bad". Over time the concepts of good and evil became increasingly politicized, until they became almost completely divorced from transcendental ideas. It was only after the divorce occurred between "transcendental" and "good" that the concept of good was itself conflated into another idea, that of the "work ethic". Today "working" has finished taking ideas from "good" and is divorcing itself from those ideas.
I believe that ultimately, "work" as a value cannot stand on its own and that eventually, neither can "good and evil". The course of history has been to separate these ideas (and ourselves) from transcendental truth through a processes of partial absorption and divorce. Imaginary "rights" (none of which actually exist) have helped this process along. Even so, the same forces that contributed to the atomization of traditional structures will also ultimately destroy their products, eventually leaving only the truth behind.
If we consider traditional values, work was originally acknowledged as being something that rational people wanted to avoid doing too much of. But work was also associated with human survival, so those who were "good" were usually found working, particularly as the dilemmas associated with slavery mounted (previously, the dilemma wherein one doesn't want to work but work must be done and getting it done is "good" was sometimes solved by making other people do the work). Ultimately, the traditional values that viewed any kind of drudgery as a metaphysical stigma were supplanted by new forms of traditional values (particularly in Protestant Christianity) that viewed work as a noble sacrifice.
What we see then is that the concept of being a "good person" and "doing good" were conflated into working. This happened because working resulted in good things for people. Today, the idea of working is being divested from all other moral values, meaning that a person can be "bad" in practically every way but so long as they work hard, they may still be considered "good" by many people.
While this is a problem that people will need to assess as jobs are "lost" to automation, instead of discussing it and the future I would prefer to go even further back because I think it is in the past where the real answer to this dilemma can be found. We will eventually have to accept that "working" is not always good in of itself, only being good is good in of itself. But what is being good?
The earliest philosophies generally did not distinguish between "good and evil" in the first place. Instead they talked about the metaphysical unity of all things and the goal of spiritual transcendence. The concept of "good and evil" was an easy method for explaining the quest for transcendence: things that encouraged one to transcend their selfish individual existence, such as meditation and charity, were "good" while things that did not encourage transcendence were "bad". Over time the concepts of good and evil became increasingly politicized, until they became almost completely divorced from transcendental ideas. It was only after the divorce occurred between "transcendental" and "good" that the concept of good was itself conflated into another idea, that of the "work ethic". Today "working" has finished taking ideas from "good" and is divorcing itself from those ideas.
I believe that ultimately, "work" as a value cannot stand on its own and that eventually, neither can "good and evil". The course of history has been to separate these ideas (and ourselves) from transcendental truth through a processes of partial absorption and divorce. Imaginary "rights" (none of which actually exist) have helped this process along. Even so, the same forces that contributed to the atomization of traditional structures will also ultimately destroy their products, eventually leaving only the truth behind.
Orb Team Re-Assemble!