Hacker News Reader

I think that the key question behind the discussion is control and self determination.

When we say 'work', we sometimes mean productive effort, and we sometimes mean labour for someone else for which we are compensated in extrinsic ways.

Putting forth productive effort in support of a worthwhile goal is praiseworthy but there's nothing particularly praiseworthy about the arrangement where one person does so primarily because they feel like they don't have a choice (they need to eat, live, support their family).

Some variants of that are relatively benign and some are coercive, abusive and unhealthy.

The ideal would be a world where economic coercion didn't exist, and those that worked for others did so only because they truly thought that working on this vision and with these people was a good use of their energy.

Yes, might be useful to distinguish between work and toil.

I think being willing to work hard when it is necessary is a virtue. But most of the time working smart is more effective and efficient than working hard. And using working hard as one's primary method for productivity ceases to be virtuous or effective. Forcing workers to work hard and long is a control mechanism far more often than it is a tool for productivity.

In my experience, people who praise work as a virtue almost universally enjoy work, or at least find it satisfying (or, more tragically, don't really enjoy it but simply don't know what else to do with their time). Could the "hard work as virtue" view, at least in part, be a post-hoc justification for how one enjoys spending life anyway?

I've experienced both sides of the coin. Until I was about 18, I had essentially never enjoyed work (for school or menial labor student jobs) and avoided it as much as possible. Learning how to program changed that for me, once I got the hang of it it felt like you can play a puzzle game and people will consider it work. From then on I worked quite hard, just because I enjoyed it.

But I remember the feeling of hating work, and I don't feel virtuous for enjoying it, I just feel lucky that I happen to enjoy work in a lucrative field.

I agree.

For the same reason I get annoyed when I hear the praises of work/life balance. Balance to what? Leisure? Where does leisure lead? If my work can give me joy why should I strive to minimize its presence in my life (or even balance). Are there things in my work that aren't "pleasant"? Naturally - but it's part of the joy. Only through working through those unpleasant experiences do I value the end-result of my work seriously.

Granted - there are work situations that do not deliver joy. The question is why, and why is nothing done about it.

Anyways. I am of to spend my lunchbreak doing interval training in minus 2C until I am surely about to throw up on the track. Why? Because it'll feel amazing afterwards and I have that sense of achievement locking in for today. Makes me sleep like a baby.

You work then. No one is saying you can't anymore. But don't try and force your lifestyle on the rest of us lazy people. I'd much rather do nothing all day but read some books and go for walks.

> Only through working through those unpleasant experiences do I value the end-result of my work seriously.

I don't want to take work or the unpleasant experiences or the good feelings away from you, but this sounds like a post-hoc rationalization; and what Russell argues against in the first part. It should not be the suffering itself that makes our professional life feel whole, but providing something useful to society (even if the entire workday is filled with bliss).

But as you also allude to, there's a good kind of discomfort (e.g. a hard workout or a mind-blowing problem at work) and bad discomfort (drudgery, pointless meetings, annoying software, bad office layout, etc.). There's way too much of the latter at work, hence the (faux) praises of work/life balance.

Work is a human need (by the way, how can it be virtuous if it's a need?), but working the entire day, without autonomy, and having you life depending on it is neither a need nor virtuous.

> I have always considered "hard-working" an undoubtedly good thing, like "being kind" or "not stabbing random people."

But stabbing random people can be hard work. What I'm trying to get at is that, under the current conditions (at least here in the US, and maybe most of the aggressively capitalist world) we don't work for the virtue of it, for the intrinsic value of the work (or the result of the work), we work because survival & security (food, shelter, etc.) are tied to it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with work, but there is a lot wrong with coupling it with survival & security.

A few months ago, around the time that the extended unemployment benefits ended in my area, there were articles in the news about local restaurants struggling to hire. In one article (that captured the before/after of the unemployment benefits), a restaurant owner was arguing that the benefits needed to end so that people would have to go back to work, but once the benefits ended, he complained that while the number of applicants had increased, he didn't like the quality of applicants--he said they didn't want to work for him.

Now I'm going off on tangents, but I think the applicable point I'm trying to make, or rather the question I'm trying to ask you is: would you feel that your work is virtuous if it was exhausting, not in a field that had significant opportunities for mobility, and didn't pay well? What are the boundaries of work's virtue? Sometimes bad things (the opioid epidemic, for example) are the result of a lot of "hard work". Are those efforts virtuous?