A lynch mob is a lynch mob and if you believe that means you are obligated to support them good luck with that. Either we have free will or we don't, in which case, the question is moot!

For the most part? And your statements don't make any sense. In 1) you claim coercion and then say that it's preference or habit. It can't be both! In that respect I therefore see no manifest difference at all between 1) and 2).

So it is the case that we are born as individuals... — schopenhauer1

Or to be more accurate, we are born highly unindividuated. A newborn infant has an unwired cortex and is little more than bundle of reflexes. Then becoming meaningfully individuated is the journey of life.

The responsibility to work with the established group norms, institutions, and settings are foisted upon the individual, and thus, one has been forced into the situation. — schopenhauer1

Again, we are born unindividuated and socialisation is the distinctive aspect of becoming a human animal. There is no human individual to speak of until norms, institutions and settings have done their work to make that a fact.

Though one may feel a personal obligation out of enculturated habits and personal preferences it is not anything more than an individual preference or habit of thinking. — schopenhauer1

Nope. Those habits are your "individuality". If you have been socialised in the normal human way, the obligations are how you will balance the good of the social whole against the good of the biological self.

So yes, there is still the animal in the human. Animals also are individuated by their physical development. They develop meaningful habits in that regard.

But humans are more than just animals in that their individuation is far more constrained by a social history. Their lives have another whole level of cultural meaning.

Which is closer to the more accurate view? — schopenhauer1

Clearly the second. It makes little sense for "you" to reject what makes "you", at least in some blanket fashion.

But socialisation is more complex than that anyway. Especially in modern society, it encourages you to be individually creative and questioning. It doesn't just tolerate individual preferences, it pressures you to develop them.

And ironically this is likely the main reason for your pessimism. You exist in a consumer culture that wants you to decide what colour of iPod is "you". You exist in a Romantic culture where everyone must be the star of their own existential legend.

Actually being individuated in such an extreme fashion is a lonely form of existence. It feels unnatural for an animal that has biologically evolved for a highly connected and social lifestyle.

So there is definitely a problem - an imbalance. And it starts with believing we are "born an individual" rather than that individuality is an acquired life skill. And that for quite natural reasons, most people may in fact feel happier "fitting in" rather than "standing out".

So fitting in should be the culturally encouraged habit of preference. And yet standing out has become the odd and unnatural desire. What, at this point in human history, could be fueling such a turn of events? ;)

Though one may feel a personal obligation out of enculturated habits and personal preferences it is not anything more than an individual preference or habit of thinking.

since the group shaped/shapes the individual, and the group, by-and-large, is also part of the reason the individual can survive and thrive, the person should feel a sense of duty to the established group.

I am not sure which is more accurate, I think there are good arguments for each view.

The second view reminds me of Plato's lines in his Crito when Socrates considers Crito's escape plan and Socrates explains that he has a moral obligation to remain 51:

And he who disobeys us[the law] is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer and he does neither.

Note that, it is not so easy to leave one's country today, but people can and do leave.

In disobeying the law he is disobeying his parents. The word patriotism, 'of one's fathers' suggests that one ought to love the laws of the land as one loves one's parents.

The law of the land teach us how to act or not act, they educate us, we know most of what we know because of the practices of the place where we are raised.

Our implicit contract exists because we live under the safety, protection and economy of our country. As initially stated it is possible to leave.

Now working into your 1st possibility no being swayed by patriotism ( nationalism seems to be more of an aggressive, racial term).
A moral man might look at the bombing of Aleppo and object that Assad's grip of power, his allowance of the death and destruction of the multitudes of his citizens as well as those nations who have realized his terror is incandescently immoral. The vast migrations of people out of the country suggest that any notion of an implicit contract here is inane, that the only education the country is providing is how to kill as many enemies of the state as possible.

We owe nothing to the state, we owe everything to the universal value of human life.

And ironically this is likely the main reason for your pessimism. You exist in a consumer culture that wants you to decide what colour of iPod is "you". You exist in a Romantic culture where everyone must be the star of their own existential legend. — apokrisis

There might be narcissists that think highly of their own importance, but I think most people are aware on some level how they are are simply part of their group. What you seem to downplay is EVEN THOUGH we are shaped by the group, we still have WHAT IT FEELS LIKE to be an individual.. Your own private experience that though similar are still one's own.. YOU the INDIVIDUAL are still forced into the interplay of the individual and group.. and thus one does not have to do what you seem to advocate which is take the bait of judging the terms of condition as a good thing simply because it is, and not being critical.. even if one cannot escape the circumstances. I really don't give a hoot if you think that makes me a Romantic because I believe the individual can be critical of something that cannot be changed.

So there is definitely a problem - an imbalance. And it starts with believing we are "born an individual" rather than that individuality is an acquired life skill. And that for quite natural reasons, most people may in fact feel happier "fitting in" rather than "standing out".

So fitting in should be the culturally encouraged habit of preference. And yet standing out has become the odd and unnatural desire. What, at this point in human history, could be fueling such a turn of events? ;) — apokrisis

This is not really about fitting in but being forced the responsibilities of the group.. You make it seem like we do not have self-reflection.. I mean maybe at one point, we didn't think like this.. but we are also not being constantly impinged by purely "here and now" decision making (i.e. food sources, wild animal attacks, weather patterns). If civilization also brought with it the self-reflection of how the individual fits with the group, then so that is what we have.

And he who disobeys us[the law] is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer and he does neither. — Cavacava

Yes, I also was reminded of Socrates' reasoning.. If the state is what reared you, and you decide to live under its conditions, you should then respect the norms and dictates of the state.. so he seems to imply. But is this really sound logic? We are born into society and can self-reflect.. though we are reared by the society and it definitely shapes us the individual.. can't we resent the situation even if we are one and part of it the same?

We owe nothing to the state, we owe everything to the universal value of human life. — Cavacava

Bringing it closer to home.. do you owe society by following the dictates of a bossman? The bossman represents the institution that you are producing for.. which in turn provides services, products, and utility for society.. .Thus do you owe him your time, resources, and labor not only because of an implicit work agreement, but some broader appeal to social norms that this is the way it is.. we mus survive in this capacity in this society? As you mention with Socrates... if you live here.. these are the norms.. don't try to circumvent that which creates the survival situation which we are in?

What you seem to downplay is EVEN THOUGH we are shaped by the group, we still have WHAT IT FEELS LIKE to be an individual.. — schopenhauer1

I simply explain that the feeling is a product of socialisation.

So if feeling like an individual becomes a problem, it could be either that society is what you are going to have to fix, or it could be that you are faultily socialised and so have that particular problem - not the global problem - is what has to be somehow repaired.

Which is where positive psychology comes in. >:)

f civilization also brought with it the self-reflection of how the individual fits with the group, then so that is what we have. — schopenhauer1

But as you know, there is the problem that modern life has also brought with it a "cosmological" level view of our personal existence.

So that was the big reason for Romanticism as a cultural backlash. Enlightenment science seemed to be saying our existence was a giant meaningless cosmic accident, while at the same time our every action was already pre-determined by the fact we were simply complicated meat machines.

So culturally, that Romantic backlash is what is informing your own current socialisation some 400 years later. It is the backdrop picture on which you "self-reflect".

And the irony is this Scientistic picture of the Cosmos is not even correct. It is another social image of reality. So you are juxtaposing your existence against a brightly coloured stage fiction.

It seems a really big issue to me. Even in philosophy - which is suppose to have a handle on these things - folk just don't have a clue about the proper definition of "being human" in a way that speaks to what is natural. Whether you think we are special souls or meaningless machines, these are both vivid cultural myths (that are serving their own largely unreflected-upon purposes).

you are faultily socialised and so have that particular problem - not the global problem - is what has to be somehow repaired.

Which is where positive psychology comes in. >:) — apokrisis

So who makes the decision about the "faultily" part? The majority? Apokrisis? Enlightenment thinking?

So culturally, that Romantic backlash is what is informing your own current socialisation some 400 years later. It is the backdrop picture on which you "self-reflect". — apokrisis

I don't know whether to point out that people had these thoughts before the 1800s, or to try to agree with you in the spirit of "who cares if it is Romantic or not.. if Romantic means a greater self-awareness.. the label really doesn't matter to me".

It seems a really big issue to me. Even in philosophy - which is suppose to have a handle on these things - folk just don't have a clue about the proper definition of "being human" in a way that speaks to what is natural. Whether you think we are special souls or meaningless machines, these are both vivid cultural myths (that are serving their own largely unreflected-upon purposes). — apokrisis

You are unfairly characterizing my ideas as "special souls" or "meaningless machines" . I disagree with both, but you do not pick up the nuance or choose to downplay it to make a characterization.

So who makes the decision about the "faultily" part? — schopenhauer1

You of course. If positive psychology has anything to offer, it is empowering you with the skills to discover what is your fault, what is the world's fault.

One already presumes it is going to be a mix of both (although you may be without personal flaw?).

if Romantic means a greater self-awareness.. the label really doesn't matter to me". — schopenhauer1

Unfortunately, while it might claim that, it's not true.

You are unfairly characterizing my ideas as "special souls" or "meaningless machines" . I disagree with both, but you do not pick up the nuance or choose to downplay it to make a characterization. — schopenhauer1

You are free to add nuance. But it won't change anything if it turns out to be simply marking some particular position on the spectrum of possibilities represented by these dialectical limits on being.

The two extreme oppositions would be soul vs machine, mind vs matter. If you can talk about people and groups in ways that sidesteps that most basic dichotomy in modern culture, go for it.

You of course. If positive psychology has anything to offer, it is empowering you with the skills to discover what is your fault, what is the world's fault. — apokrisis

Ah yes.. so conditioning approved by the Village Green Preservation Society's standards of what counts as "the world's" fault and "your fault".. Like a lot of theories, it could simply create the belief that one then strives for.. If they create the model and make it convincing, then one can have a backdrop for therapy as now there can be benchmarks.. But any number of backdrops can be used. It's like making an article that "humans act like this".. which makes everyone become self-conscious of this, and then it actually does become a thing we focus on.

The two extreme oppositions would be soul vs machine, mind vs matter. If you can talk about people and groups in ways that sidesteps that most basic dichotomy in modern culture, go for it. — apokrisis

I think you simply downplay the human ability to imagine for simply looking at established habits. Yes, the established habits are this that and the other. The imagination can think of things outside of what is happening. We can abstract, and abstraction is not always used for purely survival or purely practical reasons. Sometimes one can abstract on existence itself. This abstraction, I think can provide insights into how life operates on an existential level.

Ah yes.. so conditioning approved by the Village Green Preservation Society's standards of what counts as "the world's" fault and "your fault".. — schopenhauer1

Or alternatively, it is therapy aimed at uncovering the sources of your conditioning so you can consider the value of that conditioning for yourself.

I think you simply downplay the human ability to imagine for simply looking at established habits. — schopenhauer1

So tell me more about this imaginative ability. What is its psychological origins?

Is it "computational" or "inspired" would you say? Or "somewhere in-between"?

If the state is what reared you, and you decide to live under its conditions, you should then respect the norms and dictates of the state.. so he seems to imply. But is this really sound logic?

I think it depends on patriotism, the love of country. The logic in national laws enable and shape our ends in life. Patriotism may have logical aspects but I think it is primarily emotional (ex., love of the right to bear arms :-x ) attitude, which would explain why some people appear to be more patriotic than others. The emotional attitude is distinct from the logic structure of the laws which enable and shape it

Bringing it closer to home.. do you owe society by following the dictates of a bossman?

Work is a complicated topic. So if you are paid for a service do you owe more than that service to the person/institution paying you since they are providing you with a job plus paying you for your work. I think that depends on how the owner deals with the staff, some form of the master/slave scenario. Of course you may also be alienated from you work...the modes of production...and so on.

Maybe this depends on the other people you find yourself working with. How they are treated, how they treat each other, you and the job, how the managers manage, how the owner leads the company. I do think some companies have distinct cultures, ways of performing, esprit de corps and I think this type of company attracts a lot of loyalty (obligation).

So it is the case that we are born as individuals who are raised and shaped by society/culture/linguistic input (that itself originates from historical development/established norms and institutions). Humans, for the most part, need society to thrive. Let us say there are two main responses to this:

1.) The responsibility to work with the established group norms, institutions, and settings are foisted upon the individual, and thus, one has been forced into the situation. Though one may feel a personal obligation out of enculturated habits and personal preferences it is not anything more than an individual preference or habit of thinking.

2.) The responsibility to work with the established group norms, institutions, and settings are foisted upon the individual, and thus, even if one is forced into the situation, since the group shaped/shapes the individual, and the group, by-and-large, is also part of the reason the individual can survive and thrive, the person should feel a sense of duty to the established group.

Which is closer to the more accurate view? — schopenhauer1

Well, we know that there are hermits which distance themselves from society. They take no part in it and seem to be able to take care of themselves and survive for a long time. But does the hermit live a happier, healthier life than a non-hermit? I would say that the hermit is probably happier not interacting with others or else he wouldn't be a hermit. In order to be healthier would mean that the hermit would need access to medical care when needed. No human body stays healthy and life in the wild is more harsh than life in the concrete jungle. Humans who live in a society live longer than those that don't. So, the hermit would probably be healthier if they were part of a society.

The final problem is that people need other people in order to procreate and continue the existence of the species. Hermits can't pass down their genetic information to subsequent generations, so in the long run, the hermit ceases to exist within the gene pool, or the hermit ceases to be represented in society over the long term if during it's life it never made copies of it's genes. All animals must be social to the extent that they procreate, which is a social interaction. You need two to tango.

So tell me more about this imaginative ability. What is its psychological origins?

Is it "computational" or "inspired" would you say? Or "somewhere in-between"? — apokrisis

You are asking a metaphysics question about the origins of mental activity. This question is about the ethical argument in regards to the individual in relation to the group. The origins of mental activity is certainly related with brain states, and input from the environment (of course the nature of experience is another argument).. I'm not sure what it has to do with the ability to imagine that we are a part of a group, but were also forced into the situation and thus evaluate the larger context while still living in that contexts. That is to say, we can generate and manipulate thoughts (i.e pictures, words, ideas, predictions, etc.) that are abstracted from immediate survival needs. One of the most interesting abstractions is the ability to evaluate this whole human project that we are a part of. This produces a scenario where we can feel the absurdity of the project, while still having to deal with living in said project. No other animal can do this (maybe aliens?). However, you treat it as if we do not have this ability, only observing the fact that we indeed do live in the project. Yes, this is a truism that I am not disputing.. But we are also aware of the project while we are in it.. And thus we are aware of being born into something that "is the way it is", but at the same time we can evaluate as a whole and judge, an ability which you consistently want to dismiss because it does not fit into your picture of happy alignment of group/individual feedback loop. While almost every other animal can go along being the individual...feeling harm or otherwise without really knowing the larger context.. we do not have this simple unreflective existence where things simply are what they are.

Work is a complicated topic. So if you are paid for a service do you owe more than that service to the person/institution paying you since they are providing you with a job plus paying you for your work. I think that depends on how the owner deals with the staff, some form of the master/slave scenario. Of course you may also be alienated from you work...the modes of production...and so on.

Maybe this depends on the other people you find yourself working with. How they are treated, how they treat each other, you and the job, how the managers manage, how the owner leads the company. I do think some companies have distinct cultures, ways of performing, esprit de corps and I think this type of company attracts a lot of loyalty (obligation).

ps. I have no clue where all the quotes came from but can't seem to be rid of them :-#

True, specific situations might matter. I guess the question is a bit broader then. Whether circumstances are favorable or not, in principle, do we owe a workplace our labor because it represents a spoke on the post-industrial survival context and being that the community is the contexst of our survival, we must contribute to its utility?

Edit: To bring it to a more specific level, alluding to what you were saying, are you at the least, indebted to your employer for hiring you on for work which is a large part of what sustains the goods/services for survival (at least in our type of society)? Or, if everyone is born, and that is simply the case, without any choice being given in the matter, is a job more or less a right? This is now getting more political, because this can be a type of justification for social programs, etc.

It's also part of survival, where one cooperates with other individuals as part of a social contract.

You of course. If positive psychology has anything to offer, it is empowering you with the skills to discover what is your fault, what is the world's fault.

One already presumes it is going to be a mix of both (although you may be without personal flaw?). — apokrisis

Ah, but aren't we fundamentally a part of the world? Is it the fault of myself for thinking wrong, or is it the fault of the universe for having the capability of producing such wrongness? Should we blame the victims or blame the machine that creates victims?

Positive psychology tends to depend on the manifest image of man and is philosophically shallow.

Edit: To bring it to a more specific level, alluding to what you were saying, are you at the least, indebted to your employer for hiring you on for work which is a large part of what sustains the goods/services for survival (at least in our type of society)? Or, if everyone is born, and that is simply the case, without any choice being given in the matter, is a job more or less a right? This is now getting more political, because this can be a type of justification for social programs, etc.

Well I am self employed, so yea I am indebted to myself :)

I have worked for others in the past. I don't think that work is a right in the sense that society owes me a job. All that society can provide is the opportunity to work, so that I can live, and pursue my individual ends. The only way that society can do this is with laws that govern our relationships with others, so that our opportunity to seek our own ends is fair, in so far as this is possible.

Do I owe an employer more than the work I perform? Yes, I think so. In so far as my employer provides me with work, I am provided with a paycheck for services rendered and in so far as my employer provides me with a livelihood, a way of living, I owe my employer for this also. I do not think these are the same, this is why alienation is possible. Many work for a paycheck, but do not like what they are doing, they are not able to express the character of their life in their work. But this character of life must be expressed, and in capitalistic societies it is expressed by the accumulation of things.

'I hate my job' but I love my new car'. The commodification of life. Life is enjoyed not for the work that one does but rather for the ends that what can achieve based on the work. I think this is sick, unhealthy, but I also think it is the way capitalistic societies work.

Do I owe an employer more than the work I perform? Yes, I think so. In so far as my employer provides me with work, I am provided with a paycheck for services rendered and in so far as my employer provides me with a livelihood, a way of living, I owe my employer for this also. I do not think these are the same, this is why alienation is possible. Many work for a paycheck, but do not like what they are doing, they are not able to express the character of their life in their work. But this character of life must be expressed, and in capitalistic societies it is expressed by the accumulation of things. — Cavacava

So let's reframe this..

You did not choose to be born.. that is an impossibility. Whether you choose to leave a country or not, that really does not change the circumstances of having to work. How is it then, no matter what work you do, no matter what country, that the employer should be owed something for a circumstance we did not ask for, and which if not taken, would be certain starvation, depredation, and suicide? Essentially, to add this element it means that we were forced into a situation of work, or starvation, scorn from those who do work for leeching off the system, or suicide. So, how is this a good situation? Being given the opportunity to work is a false choice because everyone must work to survive (without abusing the system) and this is due to being born without much say in the matter. So one is given the opportunity to do what one is essentially forced to do anyways..

Yes we have no control over our birth, and yes, in order to survive we must work, produce something that others will want, we must be able to participate in economic exchange to survive. Man can't survive on his own in nature, man's social character is determined negatively by nature.

In 'free' societies we are not forced to work for any specific employer, but we must work. Similarly employers are not forced to hire any specific worker, but they must have workers. There is a choice on the part of the worker and that of the employer. The synthesis of these is obligation: the worker to perform the work outlined by the employer, and the employer to enable and pay the worker for his labor. (I also think a secondary obligation is formed, loyalty on the part of the worker and the employer, yet this loyalty has become far more tenuous/temporary in our time, this is due to the capitalistic nature of our society)

Insofar as life is expressed by the work we do, our actions go beyond the material labor in which they are employed. Yes, we all have to work, and luck plays its part, but in free society we are not forced to work for any specific employer.

If I apply for work at several companies and several accept my application, then what differentiates them, how do I make my choice assuming that situations are virtually the same. Same pay, same type of working conditions and all the rest. I mentioned that businesses have a way of doing business and I think most workers look to how a business conducts itself, when they choose employment. I think a person wants to enjoy what they are doing, to see their work as productive, as an integral part of their lives.

Insofar as life is expressed by the work we do, our actions go beyond the material labor in which they are employed. Yes, we all have to work, and luck plays its part, but in free society we are not forced to work for any specific employer. — Cavacava

As far as life is expressed by the work we do.. I don't know, that's a pretty romantic vision of work. It seems like an ad hoc justification for a forced activity. Saying "Hey, we all have to work, but maybe you can find work that expresses your creativity", does not take away the fact that we are FORCED to work, whether there is a benefit we might get out of it or not. The forced part might be the sticking point here.

You also mentioned luck which is a good point to bring up. Free labor markets have an element of luck to it. There is no way to know what jobs might have been the most optimal, where they are available, and how good they will be once you actually start working there. Also, some people just might be at the right place at the right time, and some may not leading to two completely different career paths- one more to the liking of person a one not as much to the liking as b. Moving from one job to another is stressful and has many costs so it is not just about "jumping ship and leaving". However, the luck aspect which you brought up is really secondary to the main problem which is that work is a forced situation.

1.) The responsibility to work with the established group norms, institutions, and settings are foisted upon the individual, and thus, one has been forced into the situation. Though one may feel a personal obligation out of enculturated habits and personal preferences it is not anything more than an individual preference or habit of thinking.

2.) The responsibility to work with the established group norms, institutions, and settings are foisted upon the individual, and thus, even if one is forced into the situation, since the group shaped/shapes the individual, and the group, by-and-large, is also part of the reason the individual can survive and thrive, the person should feel a sense of duty to the established group. — schopenhauer1

We have extensive choices in all of this ONLY if we happen to have been born into great wealth. Otherwise, group norms and obligations apply with force. For 99% of us, there are personal preferences, but there is little choice. We are assembled, bent, shaped, molded, machined, and packaged to become more-or-less effective units of production and/or consumption (both are essential). There is a certain "looseness" in our construction which allows for preferences and choices.

If we are unlucky, we are given, find, or develop the illusion that we have many choices and are largely free of all of these obligations, and uncultured habits. Unlucky because these ideas of freedom are essentially incompatible with the facts of life, and anyone holding these illusions is going to crash into a great deal of cognitive dissonance, flak, resistance, friction, and control measures.

We have extensive choices in all of this ONLY if we happen to have been born into great wealth. Otherwise, group norms and obligations apply with force. For 99% of us, there are personal preferences, but there is little choice. We are assembled, bent, shaped, molded, machined, and packaged to become more-or-less effective units of production and/or consumption (both are essential). There is a certain "looseness" in our construction which allows for preferences and choices.

If we are unlucky, we are given, find, or develop the illusion that we have many choices and are largely free of all of these obligations, and uncultured habits. Unlucky because these ideas of freedom are essentially incompatible with the facts of life, and anyone holding these illusions is going to crash into a great deal of cognitive dissonance, flak, resistance, friction, and control measures. — Bitter Crank

Agreed..Funny I answered a post you had in a similar thread in as far as the work part goes (see further down this thread with Cavacava). Anyways, what is that saying about the situation of being forced into existence that we are "assembled, bent, shaped, molded, machined, and packaged" to become more-or-less effective units of production? Of course, my stock answer is to embrace antinatalism as a philosophy of consolation.. Not out of its practical implementation, but more out of an embracing of one's own dignity as an individual.. Understanding this pessimistic/antinatalist ethic instills in the individual the understanding that even though the group created them, has given them the "opportunity" to pursue personal ends within the framework of the group.. the whole existential project of enduring life was forced and thus the feeling of gratitude and obligation to the group is more or less an outcome of not quite understanding the bigger picture.

The synthesis of these is obligation: the worker to perform the work outlined by the employer, and the employer to enable and pay the worker for his labor. — Cavacava

Obligation?

For most of the history of capitalist society, this mutual 'obligation' has amounted to wage slavery. ("Slavery" references the imbalance between the very small power of the worker vis a vis the extensive power of employers to control hiring, firing, working conditions, wages, etc.) If a worker doesn't accept the employer-group's norms, he will be reduced to abject poverty, and an early death.

Only in industries, which are heavily unionized or face a major shortage of workers is there any brake on the power of the employer. Needless to say, employers strive to eliminate unionization and worker shortages.

Proper socialization into capitalist society involves suppressing the harsh economic realities underlying the workplace. How are these realities kept suppressed? By propaganda, largely, and the experiences of a minority of workers who happen to be in sufficiently high demand that they can afford to tell the employer to go fuck himself. Their testimony supports ideas about the power of labor to obtain better deals. Most workers can't really afford the risks of quitting. They stay at their jobs, and work away faithfully, because they don't see too much option. In any given year, most workers do not discover how flimsy the "safety net" is, or how close to the concrete it is positioned.

Self employment is an option for some people, and if you can make it work for you, great.

I think a person wants to enjoy what they are doing, to see their work as productive, as an integral part of their lives. — Cavacava

Indeed people do want to enjoy what they are doing, to see themselves a productive, and to find that their work is an integral part of their lives. But there is a persistent and strong undertow that prevents this happy solidarity of life and work: Alienation.

Alienation (in the Marxist sense) means that our work does not belong to us. We do not own our work place, we do not own the product or service we create, and we do not control the conditions of our work. The company (or agency) owns, controls, and disposes of our work as it sees fit. (It doesn't matter whether one is a machine operator or a service worker in a charitable non-profit.)

Some employers make an effort to lessen the alienation of their workers by softening the alienation of work, but in the final analysis (when push comes to shove) the company is in charge. Some employers identify lock, stock, and barrel with their employers and are total company men and women. This lessens alienation too, and if they aren't sacked despite being company tools, it may work out for them.

But whether one works in a "humanized" work place or is married to the company, alienation is still a fact of life. And it extends beyond the work place into many aspects of life, where we find ourselves serving corporate purposes. Certainly this happens every time we go through the line at the cash register. We buy necessities, optional purchases, and luxuries from for-profit operations which are alienated work places. The wonderful new Apple, Samsung, or WTF phone I have in my pocket and am pleased to own was made in hundreds of shithole workplaces where the conditions of alienation were not disguised. Same goes for the food I eat, the clothes I wear--pretty much everything.

Most people do not feel alienated, but alienation here isn't a "feeling". It's an economic condition that either subtly or crudely robs the worker of autonomy. One can "feel" just fine about one's job, one's life, while being robbed blind.

If our character is determined by our actions, and work takes up much of what we do, then work determines our character to no small extent. How do group norms force one to accept one job over another, except by commodification of life, which leads to our alienation from what we do. But we are not forced to accept, we can be a merry mailman if that is what we want, and we are fortunate to live in a society where this is free choice.

To say that well we don't do this, I don't think is a valid argument against our ability to say no, that we can intend to do something else. I think there is a direct link between the slingshot and the atomic bomb, but I don't think such a link exist between slavery and freedom. Otherwise where did the civil rights movement come from? Except by saying no to the prevailing norms.

There are people who enjoy what they do. To point to all the possible counterexamples cannot dismiss the fact that people, generally have the ability to say I'll do this and not that.

Some responsibilities come with formal agreements, such as contracts of employment or marriage. Others arise from informal agreements, often for practical reasons, such as being friendly in a shared environment where being unfriendly would provoke protest, punishment etc. But also from a personal point of view, as when one feels responsibility to care for one's friends, or lover; which might be mutually practical, or something which arises individually, regardless of agreement, in particular when you love somebody. A parent's responsibility for his or her children seems biologically motivated, whereas my responsibility for my cat arises from the fact that I like the bugger and her company.