The Categorical Imperative is what you get when a puritanical enlightenment snob plagiarizes the Golden Rule, re-writing it in garbled jargon like an asshole.
Let’s see, what else…
The very point of bringing that up is to contest the association between work ethic and the diligence/work as a virtue or character building activity.
I disagree with diligence as a measure of work ethic. It is a misguided association that relies on a relation time/effort = yield, when to the brightest and most skilled worker, performing a task should require the least amount of time and effort. To select for diligence is to reward a mediocre worker over a more skilled one, so long as he shows greater effort.
Looking for diligence is the mark of a macro-manager. The asshole who just wants to see you at your post and has no idea of what you’re doing.
If you are bending over some work for hours on end and working long hours, it could just as easily mean that you are incompetent/unfit to perform that task, which probably means you lied about your qualifications.
If it takes me half the amount of time to deliver the same product as you, I am better at that task than you.
Instead, work ethic serves a better purpose when thought of in terms of providing what is required for a work exchange to occur, which in my opinion is trustworthiness and accuracy.
Edit: replacing “hence” with “instead”.
Good one, cowboy. However, you’re implying that the golden rule is original. Is that so?
Spidey wrote:
Oh dear…Oh my…
More hogwash trickling down your fingertips, woman. Diligence is a sign of grit, of endurance. Many, if not most jobs, require long hours of work. Example: a roughneck, who works on an oil rig - this is probably the par excellence of manual labor. They work approximately 15 hours a day, every day. Now, are you going to tell me that diligence is negligible here, or even for the vast majority of jobs?
Pay attention to what I said.
It is not his 15 hours of work that should be an indication of his skill for the job, but what he was able to produce in that time vs what others produce.
Let’s say I get a job at an oil rig. Everybody punches the clock at 15 hours, but I stay there an extra 2 out of my own sense of diligence to try and make up for being less physically fit than the other workers.
Is my effort admirable? According to puritan ethics, probably. But the reality of the matter is that I am not suited for that job.
Concurrence isn’t indicative of acuity of attention.
You are simply incorrect, Phon. Diligence, grit, endurance are apposite qualities that are rightly taken into consideration, when hiring an employee; most jobs require these characteristics. Now, that’s not the sole quality, but def. a major one.
And hedonism isn’t about pleasure.
And you aren’t an attention whore.
And you are definitively not nitpicking.
Who said anything about concurrence?
Maybe I’ll just let you argue against yourself and leave the thread.
And you aren’t a troll I guess?
Woman, your peremptory remark that I ought to pay attention insinuated that, if I paid attention better, I would become enlightened to the veracity of your position and, therefore, concur.
Ironically, it seems like you need to " pay attention " to what I have written, because you clearly misconstrued my position. Just because I conveyed my antipathy for the protestant work-ethic, that doesn’t mean I view arduousness, as something absolutely deplorable, or unnecessary. Within the context of some chattel-slave job, I find it to be execrable ( personally ), because it’s slavish. But for one’s own ends, for own’s own process, it’s good.
You tried to ensnare me in some petty trap of yours with your silly question about Kant, because you took umbrage to my calling a spade a spade.
Don’t be silly. Nobody views arduousness itself as deplorable or unnecessary. That’s not what we are talking about. We’re talking about arduousness as a measure of the quality of a worker.
The very premise of the OP is that working hard and working long hours as an admirable quality in a worker, which is a premise of protestant work ethic, and the lack of demonstrable effort in work as a vice, is a false premise, a premise that aims to make slaves out of workers. That’s something you seemed to agree with with your first post. But then if so, why do you have an issue with what I said, that work ethic should not be about hard work, but trustworthiness?
Kiddo, if you want to talk to me, you don’t need to throw bugs in my hair, you can just smile and say hi.
“Kiddo”?
Fucking adorable
My contention was with you asserting that working hard has nothing to do with work-ethic. Whether we personally view that ethic as deplorable ( in regards to chattel-slavery ) is immaterial - in that specific context - because you were implying that employers don’t value diligent employees, that hard work and endurance aren’t aspects of their perceived work-ethic. The truth is that slavery is, basically, necessary in our current economic systems. We need people to flip burgers for us, mop the floors, clean up the shit, etc-etc. I, personally, would never degrade myself to such modern vassalage, but I’m cognizant of the necessity of these positions and that it’s not gratuitous of employers to screen out potential employees based on diligence.
No I didn’t 
. --The Golden Rule is just a label for a basic ethical principal, which is mute about its origin. Like ‘sandwich’ is a name which is mute about who made it. Kant is not relevant because he re-wrote it as he did. Do you think he is?
So you mistook my post for factual instead of opinion and dragged a conversation based on that mistake for a whole page. Can I get back to work now? I’ve got toys to deliver.
The bitch wrote:
You claimed work ethic has NOTHING to do with working hard. That’s not a mere opinion, but an all-encompassing factual declaration.
I’m pulling your leg. The “golden rule” and the “silver rule” are labels for the ethic of reciprocity, which I believe the most original recorded source is the code of Hammurabi. But…
If a basic ethical principal is mute about its origin, why should it matter to you if I quote Kant or Hammurabi?
Maybe I should preempt my posts with “IN MY OPINION”, like a simpleton, to avoid being misunderstood by simpletons.
It doesn’t.
That said, he was a bit of an asshole. 
Good to see you around these parts bruva.