Hard work is a subset of the Moral consensus of society. It is the Moral consensus of society (i.e. that murder is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that false witness is wrong, etc.) THAT is the glue which holds society together.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/the_glue_of_civilization.html

DL,

The things you mention all deal with hurting others. Crime. And the "morals" involved are nearly universal. They transcend religion. They transcend culture. They transcend country. Where the moral consensus breaks down is over harming yourself. Vice.

And the people who are unable to discern the difference accelerate the breakdown that you so abhor. It is to laugh.

Well, this post was about the definition of work, and the work ethic.

So, within that context, assume work is a moral issue. If the "moral consensus" (consensus by definition means the view held by the majority) is that people should work hard to serve the state, I would maintain that the moral consensus is wrong. Sure, the majority will be able to outvote me and vote for legislators who pass laws requiring me to work for the state, but that does not make it right. Nor can the opinion of a majority ever be controlling over what I think.

(Just as I don't go along with that scientific consensus they've got going....)

DL,

The things you mention all deal with hurting others. Crime. And the "morals" involved are nearly universal. They transcend religion. They transcend culture. They transcend country. Where the moral consensus breaks down is over harming yourself. Vice.

And the people who are unable to discern the difference accelerate the breakdown that you so abhor. It is to laugh.
M. Simon · October 6, 2010 12:47 AM

And you keep DECLARING that no one else is harmed, thereby ignoring the dichotomy in your philosophy.

In Abortion and Drugs and Aberrant sexual behavior and yes, wasteful spending, INNOCENTS ARE HARMED! You and other Libertarians simply refuse to see it. (except in the case of wasteful spending, where somehow your vision is clear.)

Well, this post was about the definition of work, and the work ethic.

So, within that context, assume work is a moral issue. If the "moral consensus" (consensus by definition means the view held by the majority) is that people should work hard to serve the state, I would maintain that the moral consensus is wrong. Sure, the majority will be able to outvote me and vote for legislators who pass laws requiring me to work for the state, but that does not make it right. Nor can the opinion of a majority ever be controlling over what I think.

(Just as I don't go along with that scientific consensus they've got going....)
Eric Scheie · October 6, 2010 09:50 AM

You are leaving out a dimension. TIME. The moral consensus over time is the glue that hold's society together. You are granting the current transitory zeitgeist veto power over the rest of the function.

This current "modern" morality has yet to play itself out. It has not been subjected to any great trauma and it's robustness is yet to be determined. I suggest that when it is tested, it will be shown to have been a poor match for adversity, unlike the Longer term Moral consensus which this nation possessed for most of it's history.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/107424/

'lanched

DL,

Bad morality is self correcting. About 20 years or so. Bad government is more difficult. The war on cannabis is still on 70+ years later.

Government is too big. I'm into hacking it down to a reasonable size. The less it does the better. A time tested if somewhat dishonored American value.

And DL given all the jobs the government does so well what jobs do you think ought to be added to its portfolio?

The things you mention all deal with hurting others. Crime. And the "morals" involved are nearly universal. They transcend religion. They transcend culture. They transcend country

Really? You have any evidence for that? Because I can give evidence of some SERIOUS exceptions to that, quite easily.

Even murder! Murder is always bad, right? Well, not if it's an "honor killing" (modern day Arab societies, MANY historical examples). Not if you're "upper class" and the victim is "lower class" (Japanese samurai two centuries ago is probably the most well-known, but again, MANY others exist).

Rape? Again, it totally depends (historically) on who you are doing it to.

Stealing? This one is a little bit better than the others, but not much. There are even modern societies that don't have a value system like this (European Gypsies, among others).

Generally speaking, societies that DON'T have problems with these behaviours underperform in comparison to those that do, which is why there are fewer of them today... but then, that's the POINT - the "moral consensus" holds society together... or doesn't, if the morals consensed (heh) are crappy.

This is why conservatives give a crap about this stuff: history is full of societies that let their moral consensus go to crap, but the modern world has a lot fewer of them. Because history is NOT KIND to such societies!

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 26% of Adults believe it's still possible for just about anyone in America to work hard and get rich."

Okay, so let's say just about everyone gets jobs paying $200,000/yr (the new definition of "rich"). What happens?

Easy. Those $200,000/yr earners are now "lower middle class." A gallon of milk will cost $25, and a used Ford Escort will cost more than it did new. That's Economics 101, supply and demand.

We're already seeing the same thing with bachelor's degrees: When everyone has one, its value is so watered-down as to be worthless for setting one apart from the crowds.

When everyone is special, then no one is special.

The very term "work ethic" is misleading. It has its origin in Calvinism, and was played up by some sociologist named Weber in the freshman-required must-read of the collegiate generation just before mine, giving it and its misapprehension the same staying power that "greening" and "counterculture" have for old students of my age.

As I've been given to understand it, the Elect were chosen by the creator at the beginning of time, and neither grace nor works can change that. But those chosen by God could demonstrate their status by taking advantage of every opportunity handed them by their predestination.

Now this seems an odd view to a Catholic, a Jew, or a Lutheran. It has seemed very odd to me, for decades now, that the title given it should be used to demean real work, or real ethics. Thank you.

"Do slaves work? By any reasonable standard, they do, but working for nothing is not what most of us consider work. Whether they were enslaved blacks in the antebellum South, enslaved political prisoners in Stalin's Gulags, or enslaved Jews in concentration camps, they performed work."

What we know is that slaves perform work only to the extent that they have to. The antebellum South required whole layers of overseers and overseers of the overseers that did not exist on farms in the North. The whole system created inefficiencies that were disguised by the "idea" that the slaves' labor was "free." Naturally, the slaves only worked to the extent they could be driven to it. The Nazis' slave labor sabotaged the work that they performed as evidenced by the high percentage of dud artillery shells noticed by Allied troops. The genius of the free market system is that it gets people to do voluntarily better what you could never get by even the most brutal coercive means

The definition of "work ethic" I grew up with was that one worked whether one enjoyed it or not in order not to be a burden on the rest of society. Beyond that, there was no communitarian obligation, although there may have been one to immediate dependents and charity (which requires a surplus over subsistence). The post and especially the comments seem to have veered all over the place without shedding much light on what definitions people have in mind.

A lot of liberals who went into helping professions out of a sense of honor, of doing some good for others, are disillusioned thereby. The "others" are sometimes helped but sometimes not, and not all are grateful.

With some, this causes them to question their liberalism, or tamp it down a reasonable understanding of what can and can't be fixed, with more realistic expectations of what "society" should do. I like those liberals just fine, though they still lean toward more government intervention and I think they are wrong. But others grow increasingly resentful at a "society" that doesn't value them by rewarding them with money and/or prestige. They resent their own choice - a form of the work ethic - and either become bitter or try and move into the nonprofit and advocacy sectors where they can pretend they are still helping, while commanding more status. If you want to grasp why so many liberals are angry, you can start there. Idealism crushed is a powerful source of anger, not always directed at the proper target.

There is another, more positive side to the work ethic. We all exist in social contexts, and the sense of duty is part of our morality which makes us human. The trick is who, or what, exactly we feel that sense of duty towards. A free market naturally rewards the production of goods or services valued by others. We can rightly enjoy the reinforcement our fellows give for our labor, whether we find that labor enjoyable or no. We may not like the work, but we like being able to live near ski resorts or extended family; we may like making more money for our trouble; we may like the security of certain work, or the camaraderie of coworkers; we may like being able to set our own hours or having overtime available, or a dozen other things other than the actual work itself.

When society - our nation, family, tribe, group - does not value what we think they should, leaving us with diminished status or resources, we blame it and start to hold it in contempt.

But these helpers have a point. The rest of society are at least somewhat free riders on their altruism. If they didn't care for those who cannot care for themselves, often at low wages (think nursing home attendants) the rugged individualists would find that they had enormous everyday problems which would decrease their efficiency and ability to be compensated for work they enjoy and others find valuable.

Related: An increase in cannabis use (to take M. Simon's favorite example) among the young will increase the amount of schizophrenia - and we cannot tell in advance which users, by reason of their genetic, cultural, or prenatal influence, will develop schizophrenia. That increase, whatever it is, will result in more people who either seriously interfere with the smooth operation of every shop and village, or will require very expensive treatment, beyond the reach of nearly any family. Or some of both.

That is not to say, BTW, that our current laws decrease cannabis use or that any proposed change of policy in either direction will increase it. I don't know the answer to that, nor do I think, does anyone. We are certainly spending a ton of money on our current system, with dubious result. But M. Simon's thought that increased freedom in this area will have a primarily beneficial effect is no more than a hope, a guess that if we roll the dice on that one it won't be catastrophic. My own thought is that all results will be mixed.

In my opinion, work ethic means that if you are paid to do a job, you do it to the best of your ability. Not just so you may get rich but because it's the right thing to do.

My definition of a good "work ethic" is to do whatever job your given to the best of your ability, regardless of rewards or recognition. It is based on the concept that our main purpose and calling in life is to honor and serve our God/creator/whatever, not ourselves or even other people. The fact that doing so also happens to be a benefit to others is a bonus. It is why apostle Paul did not speak out against slavery, but instead encouraged slaves to serve their masters to the best of their ability.

I agree it is antithetical to capitalism, or socialism for that matter, and this ethic should not be "pushed" either formally or informally. The ethic must be purely voluntary for it to be worth anything. As a result, if you want a functioning secular society, you need to have incentives, you can't afford to rely on others having this ethic.

This is a rich subject, and like most such, it provides a home to arguments that can never be settled definitively.

The "work ethic" of Puritan / Calvinist yore was an absolute prescription: work as a good in itself, and the more, the better. But work as understood in the abstract must connect to an envisioned goal. It must pursue that goal, albeit the pursuit might ultimately prove to be futile. Thus, work is revealed as purpose-driven, temporally bound, and therefore instrumental only. It is not and cannot be an absolute principle.

But this is a special case of a general law. No temporal prescription, independent of contextual qualification, can be absolute. Everything we do in our time-bound, cause-and-effect-based universe is a means. There are no true ends except happiness -- and happiness isn't something one can pursue directly.

"Work ethic" talk is mostly homiletic. "Work hard," we are told, "so you can..." What? Have what? Be what? The requirement for qualification is insuperable. Unless and until the qualification arrives, the "work ethic" prescription amounts to a commandment from on high -- and God didn't find room for that one among the Ten!

"No aphorism is complete without a second, qualifying sentence." -- Piers Anthony, Macroscope.

Work might be appropriately defined as productive effort. Accordingly, a work ethic might be best defined as a willingness or eagerness to expend effort to be productive. So, the nature of the question of whether it represents a duty to society or personal value reflects one's predisposition to view production as individually or socially owned. I really don't think the question of interest in the activity per se should be seen as a determining factor. I'd be willing to bet that, late at night, when editing a novel, even Mr. Twain would say his work as a writer wasn't particularly play. But, he valued the product of that effort enough that the unpleasantness didn't necessarily matter.

The old definition of "work ethic" was "if I want a reward, I need to work hard at something useful".

The new definition is "I worked, so I deserve a reward."

Note that the new definition says nothing about how hard you worked or whether it was useful.

A proper work ethic comes from and fuels pride and self-esteem. It is not based on duty. As Twain alluded to, history's great innovators and producers loved their work; they did not regard it resentfully or as a burden.

Having said that, if only 26% of people think anyone can get rich by working hard, this does not mean that the others have abandoned the work ethic. Rather, they may simply believe that today's system ("the rich" for the left, or out-of-control government for the right) limits their opportunities. How many people in Soviet Russia thought they could get rich by working hard?

The problem is with the question, "Can you get rich by working hard?" Any answer convolutes both one's personal view of work with one's view of existing opportunities in today's America.

It's easy to tell people "do what you love", but many job types that people could love are being outsourced to countries that specialize in certain areas, so the odds are increasingly stacked against you in that regard. If most people who are good at building cameras are in Japan then that's where the camera builders will be, for example. Ie. if a big enough fraction of your own population doesn't share you're interests, you may be out of luck (spare me the "move to Japan advice").

Seems to me that work is part of human nature, just as play is. Unless the impulse is actively discouraged or hampered, humans engage in all manner of activity that may be construed as work (or play). It's what humans do. I think DensityDuck sums it up nicely -- it is a source of personal validation and reinforcement of self-worth. Whether it's drudgery or pleasure depends on the worldview of the individual, not the task itself or whether it pays. Value and cost are two different things. Work is the price you pay for the things you want, whether it's cash or satisfaction.

The purpose of work is to transcend oneself, to transcend one's ego. When you work, you create something. Instead of focussing on yourself, you put yourself into the thing you are making. When you put yourself into an object, you are going outside your own self--that is called transcendence. This insight is from the philosopher Georg Hegel (1830s).

In more modern times, evolutionary epistemologists suggest that just as a spider is destined to build a web, a beaver to build a dam, so too humans are destined to build buildings, autos, etc. What human build/make are called "objective mind." In other words, the human mind imagines something, and then the human goes ahead and makes it. Transforming the idea into something overt, whether it is an organization, a building, or a novel, turns the idea into "objective mind," something everybody else can see/interact with.

Work has to be distinguished from toil. When I create a thought-filled comment and post it online, that is work. When I clean my toilet, that is toil.

The American work ethic embodied in an American is a tacit, unconscious understanding of the points above.

Gloria -- is the act of creation transcending yourself, or is it asserting yourself? Seems like an act of self-assertion to me. Actually, it can be both.

Mark Twain also said that while people climb Mont Blanc for fun, assembling artificial flowers for pay is considered work.

I would argue that you're doing work when you're producing value greater than what you're consuming; otherwise, you're doing leisure.

It's almost but not quite a tautological definition, but it can lead to useful insights.

Writing articles and posting them online for others to read => work, to the extent that it's valuable to your readers; but uncompensated.

Sitting in your armchair reading => leisure, probably, since it's valuable only to you.

Sitting in your armchair reading and thinking about your next article/blog post => close to the line between work and leisure

Rewiring houses => valuable work, even if you're not paid for it

The hard part, of course, is to figure out what the value is, price it, and monetize it.

the weaselly phrase "the work ethic" avoids taking sides on the "work hard, and you'll make more money" versus the "work hard for the good of society" argument. It is not surprising

Actually, that is a false dichotomy. The way I myself understand the work ethic is [to use some of your own words]:
You might be able to make money without working for the good of society, but you won't be happy with it -- and you won't deserve to be.

Or, to quote Max Weber:
The fortunate is seldom satisfied with the fact of being fortunate. Beyond this, he needs to know that he has a right to his good fortune.

Europe since WW2, and the USSR and postwar Communist regimes in eastern Europe, pretty much proved the extent to which govt-created incentives can enlarge or diminish people's desire and willingness to do productive work. Which actually may be viewed as a partial confirmation of Marx's theory that the means of production determine the class structure and relations between classes. Include taxation and regulation as government incentives, and people will adapt their behavior, and eventually their belief systems to rationalize or explain that behavior. Marx went way too far, but here is a kernel of truth.

Example--European countries that forbid "excessive" work (France 35-hr week) and tax away all the incentive to work hard---in a few years they all decide that not working hard is a sign they are sophisticated and enjoy life, rather than work hard like those culturally inferior Americans or Japanese, who spend too much time working. The "lifestyle superpower" meme.

Conclusion, we keep coming back to Jefferson--"The govt that governs least, governs best." Govt should strive to create the fewest incentives or disincentives, it should do what is essential with the lightest possible hand, and let people then find their own way. The political argument, rightly understood, then revolves around what is it essential that govt do, and then how to do it causing the least other problems.

the weaselly phrase "the work ethic" avoids taking sides on the "work hard, and you'll make more money" versus the "work hard for the good of society" argument. It is not surprising

Actually, that is a false dichotomy. The way I myself understand the work ethic is [to use some of your own words]:
You might be able to make money without working for the good of society, but you won't be happy with it -- and you won't deserve to be.

Or, to quote Max Weber:
The fortunate is seldom satisfied with the fact of being fortunate. Beyond this, he needs to know that he has a right to his good fortune.

Sorry about the double posting.

I suppose I view the work ethic as a judge does pornography: I know it when I see it. I understand it to mean working hard, honestly and consistently at your job in particular, but also any other task you have before you. The meaning is plain in contrast to its opposite: someone lacking a work ethic is lazy or not conscientious about the work they perform.

Actually it is useful for me to be challenged on the first principles of what the phrase really means, especially in writing. As I have heard it used in daily spoken conversation I've never noticed any mystery or obfuscation in its meaning. I suppose the more communitarian meaning is removed enough from my rural and suburban culture that I either never encountered it or didn't recognize it if I did.

Starting with my simple definition, I think the answer to whether work is selfish or communitarian is, "both." It's selfish in that, in the long run and on average, it's better for an individual to be hard-working than not. And it's communitarian in that free societies and capitalist economies both depend on social trust, including the trust that employees and business owners will work hard and sincerely.

It follows, and I do believe, that becoming a low-trust society would be as destructive to our economy and republic as prohibiting the earning of new wealth, which is effectively what higher taxes and regulations are doing.

Work is required by God in his fourth commandment. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work. All work is ultimately to be rendered to the Lord.

Polling the belief that anyone can work hard and get rich, is a test of faith in the ostensible "American dream" not the American work ethic as we generally use the term. Considering how hard it is to actually get a paying job right now, such a decline in confidence is not especially surprising. Whether it represents a real shift in societal mores, per se, is a more complicated question.

Mark Twain, like anyone who finds work he loves and is good enough at it not to have to seek less palatable means of supporting himself, was in an enviable position. The physical comforts of such success, of course, inevitably rely on others who are not so talented or fortunate in their individual circumstances. I daresay Twain was not scrubbing his own floors and hauling off his own garbage or picking cotton for his shirts in 1905. What he was essentially saying, however, was that those handsome rewards were beside the point.

Twain's "play ethic," is about doing what you love regardless of the economics of the thing. In contrast, "hard work will make you rich," is a financial ethic. "Hard work will pay off" is also an ambitious ethic, but with pay offs which are not necessarily financial. "Hard work is necessary for the greater good" is a civic ethic. Hard work as the prerequisite for self-sufficieny is an independence ethic. "Will work for food" is a transactional survival ethic. Hard work as paying dues is a values ethic. Hard work vs. laziness is a character ethic. I, for one, wouldn't want to contemplate the results of winnowing down the list to a singular, uniformly shared ethic.

Understandable quibbles with my descriptors notwithstanding, all of the above are ethics in the sense that they represent operational principles. For the purposes of discussion, and my initial point, however, they do seem to divide up into two basic categories. We have the American Dream, for example, which is an aspirational ethic and we have what Americans generally mean by "work ethic" as an imperative. Rasmussen only addresses part of the equation. What seems almost emblematic of our particular culture is the intermeshing of the two. You ought to work, and you will be rewarded for it. Call it a uniquely balanced American ethic. The change Rasmussen is measuring is not, perhaps, the most disturbing development. Aspirations can rebound; obligations, once abandoned, are far more difficult to repair.

Bill Dalasio has the right definition as far as I'm concerned. The old one that is:

The old definition of "work ethic" was "if I want a reward, I need to work hard at something useful".

To me, "work ethic" means that you have to do honest work to earn the things you want. Honest work rather than gambling, stealing or begging.

It also means you should reward and respect others for doing honest work.

Nothing about it implies the work needs to be drudgery, but it does imply that you shouldn't shy away from drudgery when it's needed. Even jobs you love will likely have their moments of unpleasant toil, and the mental will to stay on-task and do the entire job, not just the fun parts, is an important element of a work ethic.

I believe the original meaning of the "work ethic" was that work was a piety and thus honorable regardless of its status or retribution--that one did not need to be become missionary or priest for one's work to be honoring to God. So, yes, by that definition slaves can work. If you hate your work, it is because you are not a believer in the "work ethic". If you were such a believer, you would recognize that your work is honorable because God gave it to you to do.

A thief, I suppose, might work hard and enjoy his work. But he would not have a "work ethic" because he was not doing it out of higher better intentions.

I used to enjoy my work. But the last two years we have a new management team who feel deeply entitled and very arrogant. They do a lot of shouting and bullying. They know the economy is bad and they're happy to take advantage of people who are afraid of losing a job. I've sat in a committee with the CFO and HR Director who said 'they need us more than we need them so what can we get for it?'' They often tell us to just do what we're told, don't ask questions, just do what you're told.

Strangely enough, my work ethic has eroded away. I do what I'm told, and as little of that as I can get away with. I work just hard enough to avoid getting yelled at.

I envy Wally in the Dilbert strip.

DL,

Bad morality is self correcting. About 20 years or so.

GREAT INSIGHT! Now apply it to society and government! (Hint, it takes longer than 20 years to correct.)

Bad government is more difficult. The war on cannabis is still on 70+ years later.

Yes, refusing to make it easy for people to become lazy addicts is a serious problem facing our nation!

Government is too big. I'm into hacking it down to a reasonable size. The less it does the better. A time tested if somewhat dishonored American value.
M. Simon · October 6, 2010 10:55 AM

A LOT of people want it hacked down to a reasonable size, but we don't want it hacked down so small that we get a dictatorship to replace it. (which is what happens when society turns to anarchy.)

And DL given all the jobs the government does so well what jobs do you think ought to be added to its portfolio?
M. Simon · October 6, 2010 10:59 AM

None. But we should'nt take away the necessary ones either.