I think work should be done. My society has enculturated me to believe this is just a fact of life. I have embodied the value. Thus, other people should do the same. But this is true? — schopenhauer1

I'm retired now. I don't have to work and I love it. I would have done it long ago except I needed to eat; I needed a place to live; I needed to be able to support my family; I needed clothes. I worked because I had to, as do all humans. As do all animals I guess. It's not unfair. It's just how it works.

I worked because I had to, as do all humans. As do all animals I guess. It's not unfair. It's just how it works. — T Clark

You know how I'm going to answer though, right? Let's say my other arguments are on the table here...

I don't have to work and I love it. — T Clark

If life was all retirement.. But you see we need to create some sort of excuse for why people need to be put in situations that aren't retirement... "It's good to overcome X"... "You can't get Y without X", but then why we need X is not justified, only that Y isn't possible without X (Y= retirement, X = work). X is never accounted for other than people's excuses.. Like:

I needed to be able to support my family; I needed clothes. I worked because I had to, as do all humans. — T Clark

As do all animals I guess. It's not unfair. It's just how it works. — T Clark

Yet all animals don't have the ability to even think of the idea of "Not causing others to unnecessary work or feel stress".. So the point seems moot.

Yet all animals don't have the ability to even think of the idea of "Not causing others to unnecessary work or feel stress".. So the point seems moot. — schopenhauer1

So about that, a theme I've been toying with for a little bit is the idea that humans have the extra burden having to justify (or make excuses) for why X, Y, Z is happening on top of just "doing" the task at hand. We don't just X, we have reasons for X (not just causes).

So about that, a theme I've been toying with for a little bit is the idea that humans have the extra burden having to justify (or make excuses) for why X, Y, Z is happening on top of just "doing" the task at hand. We don't just X, we have reasons for X (not just causes). — schopenhauer1

Again, it's what humans do. Here's what you wrote in your OP.

Is it an opportunity or is it imposing one's values at the behest of negative stress on another person? Certainly, it would be hard for people to function otherwise. They must put in some effort to do a task that institutions approve through profit/salary/subsidy. But why is the presumption, "And this is good" a true one? — schopenhauer1

My post was in response to this. You make something easy look hard for your particular rhetorical purpose. You and I have gone over this before. I'm not going to change my mind, not are you. Your posts just seem intellectually... I was going to say "dishonest," but I believe you are sincere. Maybe the right word is "unserious." I wanted to respond to that without taking it any further.

But why is the presumption, "And this is good" a true one? — schopenhauer1

There seems to be sweet spots with challenges. IOW I think we actually do feel best when challenged. But feeling one must repeatedly stuff down emotional reactions given the power of bosses and a dearth of professional options can easily be well outside that sweet spot. I think most people are not so happy if they are doing work that does not challenge them at all - unless they can do the job AND pursue some kind of (mental?) activity at the same time that does matter to them and does offer that sweet spot of challenge. Generally we don't want to play ping pong with a world champion whose serves we cannot return and who can easily slam our serves. Nor would we choose the theoretically stress free game with someone we can beat that easily.

Again, it's what humans do. — T Clark

Maybe the right word is "unserious." I wanted to respond to that without taking it any further. — T Clark

So you weren't seeing my line of argument then. You said that "It's what humans do".. But you cannot hide justifications behind such a naturalistic fallacy as we can "do otherwise".. hence why I said:

We don't just X, we have reasons for X (not just causes). — schopenhauer1

So, when you force others to X, you are doing it for your reasons, and deeming it as "good".

You are also missing that I usually like taking everyday assumptions and question them. You call it "unserious", but I call it not taking any given as taken for granted as "just what is the case".

Generally we don't want to play ping pong with a world champion whose serves we cannot return and who can easily slam our serves. Nor would we choose the theoretically stress free game with someone we can beat that easily. — Bylaw

But how about forcing someone into a situation where they have to work in the first place?

So if someone is exploding fireworks everyday at 2am, upsetting the neighborhood.. It is imposing on others.. Generally people would frown on this.. But putting new people (born) to work and deal with stress.. essentially imposing. That's okay. Because it's what a lot of people want, so it must be right.

The great out for everyone: "It's what we do!!!".. Rather it's just what a lot of people want.. And that is an excuse?

Generally people would frown on this.. But putting new people (born) to work and deal with stress.. essentially imposing. — schopenhauer1

A difference is one can move into a house, move into a neighborhood with implicity, down to ones cells be striving to be in that neighborhood. A part of any lifeform is the striving to live. You can't give birth to something that does not want to live. It's essence is bound up in striving to survive and thrive. And it certainly may not do either. But you can't drag someone out of bed, so to speak, who in essence really wants to keep on sleeping. Their very essence is aligned with your urge procreate (if you had it, you might have wanted to just have sex, though, sure, you decided to go along with the consequences).

It’s good to gain that sort of life and work experience so that you can better operate in the future. Experience, study, and practice betters the range of skills one can have.

Stress can be a valuable function insofar as it helps one stay alert, motivated, and adaptive. If you can manage stress it can be quite beneficial.

Stress can be a valuable function insofar as it helps one stay alert, motivated, and adaptive. If you can manage stress it can be quite beneficial. — NOS4A2

So if there could be a state of affairs where no one feels stress, and one where there was, would you pick the one where the was on someone else's behalf? Is that kind of imposition right to do for someone else?

It's essence is bound up in striving to survive and thrive. — Bylaw

That isn't answering how it is right to allow impositions on someone else's behalf.

Their very essence is aligned with your urge procreate (if you had it, you might have wanted to just have sex, though, sure, you decided to go along with the consequences). — Bylaw

Urge to procreate isn't the same as dire urges that lead to death. That is a tricky one for humans, and to conflate it with how things work with other animals would be misguided.

People have the urge for a lot of things that don't need to be followed through (violence perhaps as an example).

That isn't answering how it is right to allow impositions on someone else's behalf. — schopenhauer1

But one doesn't merely do that. The only someone is someone who is complicit. You cannot create someone who is not complicit in that yearning for life.

You cannot create someone who is not complicit in that yearning for life. — Bylaw

I just don't get what you are saying here, especially when you mention "complicit".

I just don't get what you are saying here, especially when you mention "complicit". — schopenhauer1

The only creature you can give birth to is one that wants to live and thrive. If you could somehow drag someone out of life's waiting room who doesn't want to leave there, that would be something else. But you can only create something that down to its cells is struggling to live and thrive. It is in essence aligned with your choice. Or it would misscarry (or perhaps be miscarried?).

It is in essence aligned with your choice. Or it would misscarry (or perhaps be miscarried?). — Bylaw

Oh that sounds like spiritual stuff.

Urge to procreate isn't the same as dire urges that lead to death. That is a tricky one for humans, and to conflate it with how things work with other animals would be misguided.

People have the urge for a lot of things that don't need to be followed through (violence perhaps as an example). — schopenhauer1

I am not arguing that all urges are good. I am saying that if you choose to have a child or have one via the urge to have sex and decide after not to stop the process, the child you create is aligned by its nature with your choice to have a new being come in the world.

the child you create is aligned by its nature with your choice to have a new being come in the world. — Bylaw

Again, this doesn't make sense to me.

No, its biological. From its cells any organism is striving to continue to live and thrive. The only possible organisms that one could argue are not in the womb would be those that are not viable. But any that comes to term has been aligned with survival and being alive.

But any that comes to term has been aligned with survival and being alive. — Bylaw

What does "aligned with survival and being alive" mean?

I get that. It seems to me you are making a victim out of an organism that is completely aligned with the choice the parent is making. The organism is aligned. If it could somehow not be, well that would be a different story. My imaginary waiting room idea.

The organism is aligned. — Bylaw

Yes, organism is aligned.. just makes no sense. You aren't explaining it either.

The organism is trying to live and grow. That is what it is doing. It is not neutral, sitting in the womb being forced to live. EVery cells is working hard to live, process nutrients, later get comfortable in the womb. The moment it is out of the womb it will go for the nipple, complain to improve its lot and more. There is no hey I don't want to live fetus. It is aligned with your choice.

Sure I am. You're treating the fetus like it's a tabula rasa. It is not. It is striving to live. You haven't made a creature that might not want to live. You have made a creature that is striving with all its energy to live. It may change it's mind later and then it can make a decision.

So if there could be a state of affairs where no one feels stress, and one where there was, would you pick the one where the was on someone else's behalf? Is that kind of imposition right to do for someone else?

There is no state of affairs where no one feels stress, but I suppose one could avoid it with drugs and the like. I wouldn’t impose any of that, but I would advise against it.

"Not causing others to unnecessary work or feel stress". — schopenhauer1

Where is the idea of "unnecessary work" introduced? I would suggest that we work as much as we deem "necessary" to attain the goal we have set out to achieve. As do gophers, rabbits, and all the other creatures that perform tasks in order to survive.

So, even under threat of death, I suggest that all work being done is necessary to the one doing it. There is always a choice to not work, even if that means death.

Since the person in question is accepting the stress that is put on him, surely they themselves must believe it is good for something.

We could venture a layer deeper and ask ourselves why the subject is accepting the burdens that are put on him.

The easy answer is "everyone needs to eat", but ideals and standards of living imposed by the subject's environment since their birth play a far greater role. After all, even a beggar gets to eat.

You are also missing that I usually like taking everyday assumptions and question them. You call it "unserious", but I call it not taking any given as taken for granted as "just what is the case". — schopenhauer1

As I said, you and I have both made these types of argument before without success. Not much chance of it working here.

Is giving someone the "opportunity" to succeed through stressful trial-by-fires and work a good thing? Why? — schopenhauer1

This is a different question that what's in the heading. In the heading, you ask if subjecting someone to unnecessary stress is wrong. I think "unnecessary" stress is a bad thing, but stress is not necessarily a bad thing. Stress is a motivator and it provides an added sense of accomplishment when you're successful. I don't know what it would be like to take center stage for some major performance and be completely unfazed, as if you were sitting on your couch watching TV

Work is stupid but if you don't work, you will eventually die, because (surprise surprise) society has not conditioned you to be able to survive outside of it, so you gotta fill that slot! Yippeee!!!