Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Now, to think about a possible objection against this idea,
one might say how can meaningful work be a necessary component
of human flourishing when it is not available to all people
and perhaps the intuition behind this kind of potential
objection or quesion is that whatever the meaning of life is
or whatever the human flourishing is, it's got to be
available to everyone because it's just not in the nature
of the universe that some people will be excluded
from true happiness or from meaningfulness.
Now, on my account, although there is a certain intuition
there that might be right on, the fact is that regardless
of what one I identifies as an important component
of a meaningful life or of a flourishing life,
it will not be available to all people.
I can take some examples.
For instance, regardless of your ambitions, you might acknowledge
that having a certain amount of money,
it's important for living well.
Perhaps one is not flourishing if one is in poverty
yet you look around in the world and you see that many people
do not really have the means to get by and lead a decent life.
In that regard, a necessary component of living well
is not available to all people.
The ideas that a philosophical account of what is good
for human beings will not begin with a good that has to be
available to all people but will rather first think about
the components of living well and then develop in an account
of human flourishing that might serve as a basis
for social change.
Think of other examples as well.
Health and knowledge are important components
of human flourishing.
Clearly, they're not available to everyone.
Also, sex, love, and friendship are probably important
components of human flourishing and you can imagine students
you might have a friend who is relatively isolated,
doesn't have sex, love, and friendship.
You wouldn't say, oh, we're all happy, it's all good regardless
of the goods that we have in our life.
No, you would say your friend is unfortunate because they don't
have these relationships.
Perhaps they are unsociable or ugly or just not blessed
by the gods in some way.
So the idea is that regardless of what the important components
of human flourishing are, they're probably not going
to be divided equally among all people and that's a problem
with the universe or with the world rather than with
a philosophical account of human flourishing.
Also, I'd like to mention that the fact that meaningful work
is not available to all people is deeply troubling.
It is in the sense that meaningless work is often
attached to other bad things, insecurity, poverty, ill health,
dangerousness, humiliation, and so forth.
So when a person doesn't have the crucial good of good work
compounding this injustice is also sort of a gravy train
of other bad things as well.
In that regard, some people end up really not flourishing.
Now, let me see, I think I'm running out of time.
Janelle asked me to speak for about 45 minutes
so let me conclude with a few other thoughts.
I'd like to note, some of you I know are studying Karl Marx
these days, the philosophy students were telling me
how much they love their class on Marx.
You might think that this is kind of a Marxist idea
and indeed Karl Marx did have the notion that an important
component of a human life is self-realization through
fulfilling work but I should say that Marx did not have
a lock on this idea.
This is not just some kind of a Marxist idea,
rather the idea comes up in a variety of philosophical
and religious traditions.
So, for instance, according to Schumacher,
you find the idea in Buddhism.
It says the Buddhist point of view takes
work to be three-fold.
There's the development of the faculties,
overcoming an inborn kind of ego-centeredness,
and joining in common with other people.
Obviously, there are goods and services for becoming existence,
to organize work in such a manner that it becomes
meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve racking.
It's little short of criminal that indicates the greater
concern with goods than with people and evil lack
of compassion and a soul-destroying degree
of attachment to the most primitive side of existence.
So in the Buddhist perspective on the relationship between work
and leisure according to Schumacher,
these are important components of a whole integrated life.
One doesn't work in order to have leisure
but rather one needs both.
Also, you find the idea in the Hindu tradition as well
in a book called the "Hindu Conception of the Deity."
This author writes if the nature of work is properly appreciated
and applied, it will stand in the same relation to the higher
faculties like the ability of the human being
to cultivate knowledge or social relationships as food
is to the body that nourishes and enlivens the higher person
and urges him to produce the best that he is capable of.
It directs his free will along the proper course
and disciplines the animal in him into progressive channels.
It furnishes an excellent background for man to display
his scale of values and develop his personality.
So, those are some of the ideas that I've been drawing from
throughout the book.
Of course as you know, my primary framework
is about flourishing.
It's a secular framework rather than a religious one but you
find the basic idea in many different religious traditions
not only in Marxism but also in these eastern philosophies.
It's also a Catholic notion too.
You can find writings of Pope John Paul saying things
of the order that only the human being works and part of
the purpose of human existence is to work.
Now, let me stop there then and engage your questions
and comments for a while.
Many of you will have things to say.
Yes, the women in the black in the back.
(female speaker). [unclear audio].
(Dr. Veltman). Yeah, that is
an interesting suggestion.
Thanks for the devil's advocate comment.
In a sense, I think your question raises the issue
of whether there are some forms of work that are
less fulfilling in and of themselves.
One might see perhaps two basic possibilities.
On the one hand, you might think some work is simply seen
as less fulfilling because the broader culture,
perhaps the philosophical traditions and the attitudes
floating about in a society will place less value upon the work.
So on the one hand, you might think no work is valueless
or meaningless or unfulfilling in and of itself.
But it's simply a matter of the broader values
in the social context.
I would argue to the contrary that in fact some activities
are in fact more valuable than others in the respect that they
allow for more fulfillment or a greater contribution
to a community or a greater human self-realization.
There's a kind of euthyphro question
stemming behind this debate.
One might ask the following kind of question recognizing
that there are no people who are degraded in themselves
but people who feel degraded or seem like others as degraded,
one might ask, do degraded people perform degraded work
because it is inherently base?
Or you can insert another adjective there.
Or does such work merely appear base and degrading
because people in second-class social status perform it.
You might be in line with this latter idea that some activities
merely appear less valuable than others owing to the broader
social views and attitudes.