5 ms·

I understand and am close to agreeing with you, but I feel an obligation to be difficult. It’s HN (and the internet) after all. Plato and others famously ponde

I understand and am close to agreeing with you, but I feel an obligation to be difficult. It’s HN (and the internet) after all. Plato and others famously pondered over “why be good?”. If nobody sees you, if you get away with everything, why behave at all? And conversely, if all your good actions go unnoticed or even cause you harm, why do them? It is my experience this lifestyle changes and grinds your character and not in a good way.

whateveracct 3y ago
> It is my experience this lifestyle changes and grinds your character and not in a good way. 1. It's not like I do a bad job. In the hours I do allocate to work, I do an excellent job. I am able to do this because I have been in this role for years and that experience justifies the salary if I just show up. It helps to be excellent - especially when the job is so effortless. 2. It's not a lifestyle. What I'm describing isn't a large part of my life or mindset. So it cannot degrade my character. Because my character is being enhanced by several other things going on in my life that I prioritize over work.
- SanderNL 3y ago
  It’s your life so take my bullshit morality with a pinch of salt, but you make it seem like at least three of your workdays are dedicated to this job. That seems significant enough. I’m sure you do an excellent job and your boss is probably over the moon with you, but this is not about what “society” notices about you. This is about what you know. If I entered into contract and obliged myself to work a set number of hours (and not “productivity”) then I have honour-bound myself to that and all the mental gymnastics in the world cannot change that. I would know I could be more productive and that is actually contractually agreed upon, that’s the rub. If I thought otherwise I need to change the contract to “value of X” iso “X hours”. (And maybe you have such an agreement?) That’s just for me though, I don’t judge you and I’m sorry if I seem that way. Just wanted to offer a counter to the “sucker” narrative.
  - whateveracct 3y ago
    idk about all that morality stuff. At the end of the day, my job has become a minimal part of my life. When you can sleepwalk and do a Good Job [1] and get paid a quarter million, why blink? [1] I just probably saved my company my salary and change in the last month, for instance.
    - SanderNL 3y ago
      I understand and I applaud you. It’s a good life you got going there (it seems). I’m just personally grabbed by the question “what is virtue” in a way that’s hard to shake. I can come off annoying and I try hard not to. Have a great weekend.
      - scruple 3y ago
        > I'm just personally grabbed by the question “what is virtue” in a way that’s hard to shake. Personally, I'm with the GP here... I don't think you'll find it at the bottom of a (contemporary software engineering) employment contract.
  - 7znwjshsus 3y ago
    I think you misundestand the purpose of your contract. Your contract is for you to produce value, not just to have your butt on a seat for 8 hours. The problem is that you cannot measure impact in a concrete enough way for a contract. So time is used as a proxy. If you cant deliver your impact in that time, you will get fired regardless. Just fullfilling the contract is NOT enough for the employer, so why take it literally yourself?
    - kubanczyk 3y ago
      I'm afraid that "honor" thing happens one level beneath conscious understanding, so I can't talk myself out of it. I've tried, for years.
rz2k 3y ago
My take is a little cynical, but I think, “I’ve never given my best” means that the poster takes some pride in what his potential best is, and it has the side effect of never challenging the idea of what your best is. Doing good work, and being good at the work are different. In terms of philosophical perspective that seems to address intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for moral behavior, here being transformed into intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for excellence in professional work, not giving your best may be like simply avoiding difficult situations. That is, a king or general would have more opportunities and complex decisions where they even have an opportunity to be moral, compared to a peasant who has fewer opportunities to be immoral or even make decisions. All that said, professional work isn’t actually equivalent to moral behavior, and the poster pretty clearly explained that the many other aspects to his life are a much greater priority.
- SanderNL 3y ago
  I’m not seeing the “more” and “less” moral potential as clearly as you do. That’s probably because I’m somewhat of a peasant myself. The peasant in my eyes has the same conundrum but worse: why be moral if your life sucks? And quite possibly because of it? (You’d possibly be better off plundering) Every situation calls upon your character, no matter what position. It seems there is a lot of focus on external results. Like any of that changes the calculus. What I’m taking about is true no matter what the results, even if you are alone in the universe. You (and only you) know what agreements you entered in and what constitutes proper and honorable work. No amount of mental gymnastic will pacify your soul (permanently).
  - rz2k 3y ago
    The king’s role is to make executive decisions. He can make them for good and bad reasons, and good or bad results for himself personally and for his subjects. Even if he decides he wants to make the best decision for the best benefit to his subjects, the decisions are still difficult. A modern analog could be making medical decisions for someone you love. There are many ways that you can avoid having to make those decisions, deferring to the defaults that doctors will perform, or asking a spiritual advisor to make the decision for you. Having someone else make the decisions probably won’t be as good, but it will be easier. That doesn’t have anything to do with how hard someone works at a professional job when they have other more important priorities. However, I think good moral behavior even with entirely intrinsic motivations changes with the magnitude of responsibilities.
embwbam 3y ago
I agree with this sentiment completely. Virtue is ultimately internal. However, when did sacrificing all for 40h a week become the definition of honesty? I think the GP and other expressing the sentiment are pointing out that corporations would love for us to feel a moral imperative not to get distracted or do anything else during the day. There are other honest frameworks for work. Why not measure output monthly? I would argue that’s it’s far more relevant, and one could choose when and how to work and still feel good at the end of the month with the body of work we deliver. We do not owe our virtue to a corporation. I took a few years off from work recently, and I realized that one of the things I missed most was having peers and stakeholders tell appreciate my work. I think that is what our virtue wants: to help those immediately around us and be appreciated and respected for it. You could theoretically take lots of time off and still do that.

whateveracct 3y ago

> It is my experience this lifestyle changes and grinds your character and not in a good way. 1. It's not like I do a bad job. In the hours I do allocate to work, I do an excellent job. I am able to do this because I have been in this role for years and that experience justifies the salary if I just show up. It helps to be excellent - especially when the job is so effortless. 2. It's not a lifestyle. What I'm describing isn't a large part of my life or mindset. So it cannot degrade my character. Because my character is being enhanced by several other things going on in my life that I prioritize over work.

SanderNL 3y ago
It’s your life so take my bullshit morality with a pinch of salt, but you make it seem like at least three of your workdays are dedicated to this job. That seems significant enough. I’m sure you do an excellent job and your boss is probably over the moon with you, but this is not about what “society” notices about you. This is about what you know. If I entered into contract and obliged myself to work a set number of hours (and not “productivity”) then I have honour-bound myself to that and all the mental gymnastics in the world cannot change that. I would know I could be more productive and that is actually contractually agreed upon, that’s the rub. If I thought otherwise I need to change the contract to “value of X” iso “X hours”. (And maybe you have such an agreement?) That’s just for me though, I don’t judge you and I’m sorry if I seem that way. Just wanted to offer a counter to the “sucker” narrative.
- whateveracct 3y ago
  idk about all that morality stuff. At the end of the day, my job has become a minimal part of my life. When you can sleepwalk and do a Good Job [1] and get paid a quarter million, why blink? [1] I just probably saved my company my salary and change in the last month, for instance.
  - SanderNL 3y ago
    I understand and I applaud you. It’s a good life you got going there (it seems). I’m just personally grabbed by the question “what is virtue” in a way that’s hard to shake. I can come off annoying and I try hard not to. Have a great weekend.
    - scruple 3y ago
      > I'm just personally grabbed by the question “what is virtue” in a way that’s hard to shake. Personally, I'm with the GP here... I don't think you'll find it at the bottom of a (contemporary software engineering) employment contract.
- 7znwjshsus 3y ago
  I think you misundestand the purpose of your contract. Your contract is for you to produce value, not just to have your butt on a seat for 8 hours. The problem is that you cannot measure impact in a concrete enough way for a contract. So time is used as a proxy. If you cant deliver your impact in that time, you will get fired regardless. Just fullfilling the contract is NOT enough for the employer, so why take it literally yourself?
  - kubanczyk 3y ago
    I'm afraid that "honor" thing happens one level beneath conscious understanding, so I can't talk myself out of it. I've tried, for years.

rz2k 3y ago

My take is a little cynical, but I think, “I’ve never given my best” means that the poster takes some pride in what his potential best is, and it has the side effect of never challenging the idea of what your best is. Doing good work, and being good at the work are different. In terms of philosophical perspective that seems to address intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for moral behavior, here being transformed into intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for excellence in professional work, not giving your best may be like simply avoiding difficult situations. That is, a king or general would have more opportunities and complex decisions where they even have an opportunity to be moral, compared to a peasant who has fewer opportunities to be immoral or even make decisions. All that said, professional work isn’t actually equivalent to moral behavior, and the poster pretty clearly explained that the many other aspects to his life are a much greater priority.

SanderNL 3y ago
I’m not seeing the “more” and “less” moral potential as clearly as you do. That’s probably because I’m somewhat of a peasant myself. The peasant in my eyes has the same conundrum but worse: why be moral if your life sucks? And quite possibly because of it? (You’d possibly be better off plundering) Every situation calls upon your character, no matter what position. It seems there is a lot of focus on external results. Like any of that changes the calculus. What I’m taking about is true no matter what the results, even if you are alone in the universe. You (and only you) know what agreements you entered in and what constitutes proper and honorable work. No amount of mental gymnastic will pacify your soul (permanently).
- rz2k 3y ago
  The king’s role is to make executive decisions. He can make them for good and bad reasons, and good or bad results for himself personally and for his subjects. Even if he decides he wants to make the best decision for the best benefit to his subjects, the decisions are still difficult. A modern analog could be making medical decisions for someone you love. There are many ways that you can avoid having to make those decisions, deferring to the defaults that doctors will perform, or asking a spiritual advisor to make the decision for you. Having someone else make the decisions probably won’t be as good, but it will be easier. That doesn’t have anything to do with how hard someone works at a professional job when they have other more important priorities. However, I think good moral behavior even with entirely intrinsic motivations changes with the magnitude of responsibilities.

embwbam 3y ago

I agree with this sentiment completely. Virtue is ultimately internal. However, when did sacrificing all for 40h a week become the definition of honesty? I think the GP and other expressing the sentiment are pointing out that corporations would love for us to feel a moral imperative not to get distracted or do anything else during the day. There are other honest frameworks for work. Why not measure output monthly? I would argue that’s it’s far more relevant, and one could choose when and how to work and still feel good at the end of the month with the body of work we deliver. We do not owe our virtue to a corporation. I took a few years off from work recently, and I realized that one of the things I missed most was having peers and stakeholders tell appreciate my work. I think that is what our virtue wants: to help those immediately around us and be appreciated and respected for it. You could theoretically take lots of time off and still do that.