Freedom

Why do we imagine that one may/should compensate for a lack of skill with hard work? Do we really have any reason to believe that one's capacity for (or at least one's inclination to) "hard work" is any more under our control than one's "skill" level? - ca$h money hobo

Comments

Skill level is under one's control to some extent: one can become more skilled -- in juggling, say -- through practice. One has less control over how far one can improve one's skill, and how fast; that's more a matter of inborn endowments (dexterity), upbringing, environment.

Hard work, as you say, is similar. One has a lot of control over how hard one works, but much less over the limits of one's capacity for hard work, though these limits can normally be expanded with practice. One's inclination toward hard work, similarly to the limits of one's capacity for hard work and limits to the skill level one can reach, is under one's control only to a small extent.

How does all this bear on the proposed norm that one should compensate for a lack of skill with hard work? Not much, I think. For even if one's inclination to, and the limit of one's capacity for, hard work were rigidly fixed, one could still compensate by working hard up to one's limit even if this goes against one's inclination. That's all the proposed norm can reasonably be demanding.

BTW, I find the norm implausible in its suggestion that those with better skills (and better natural endowments, perhaps) have less reason to work hard. I don't see why this should make a difference.

Read another response by Thomas Pogge

Read another response about Freedom