Philosophy and the Problems of Work

The question of how the character of work is transformed by its relation to leisure and technology is pursued in more detail by Mark Okrent in his article, “Work, Play, and Technology.”

The social contract theory thus stands, both in principle and foundationally, in opposition to the feudal ideology of natural subordination and inherited status, emphasizing the values of both liberty and equality.

The idea that labor transforms the given material of the earth into something useable and sustainable places work in the unique position of securing human livelihood, an ideal for which there can be no substitute in terms of advancing human progress. Labor is understood in this regard as the source of value itself: “For ‘tis Labour indeed that puts the difference of value on every thing . . . the improvement of labour makes the far greater part of the value.”23 (And this argument, of course, became central to Marx’s critique of capitalism: in his labor theory of value and surplus-value, he attempted to show that profit was made by workers who created more value than they were compensated for. And this claim has been an ongoing charge against capitalism as an inherently exploitative system

It is within this historical context—a political conflict over property, taxes, and power between landed nobility and monarchs—that the formation of classical liberalism takes place. No other set of philosophical beliefs and political ideas places more emphasis on the importance of laboring and work than classical liberalism

, Christian doctrines turned the previous relation between work and leisure upside-down. Borrowing notions of moral self-sufficiency from the ancient philosophers, various Christian thinkers develop a conception of labor as integral to human salvation. The story of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Paradise is interpreted by some of the first Church fathers as showing that a life of work and toil is simply humankind’s punishment for transgression

Work and its activities did not have the integral ends to justify it as part of the good human life, so those who did not work viewed the social organization which depended on slavery as not only appropriate, but also “natural.”

Aristotle, for example, in the Politics, distinguished such a life from a life of arete, or “excellence”: “citizens must not lead the life of artisans or tradesmen, for such a life is ignoble and inimical to excellence. Neither must they be farmers, since leisure is necessary both for the development of excellence and the performance of political duties” (1328b-1329a).12 Not only is work conceived in opposition to excellence, it is also thought to be an obstacle to a qualitatively good human life, which included as one of its important components the absence of work, or leisure

fact, most philosophers in the history of the West were sponsored by Church or court, which did not require them to “work for a living.” One of the few and interesting exceptions to this tradition was Spinoza; since he was excluded as a heretic from both Christian and Jewish communities, he was a lens-grinder because he had no other means of securing life