1. “The Role of Work: A Eudaimonistic Perspective”
by Michael F. Reber
Abstract: For more than two centuries in industrialized societies an inherent problem has persisted regarding the role of education and work. This is due in part to the entrenched cultural dogma of the Cartesian/Newtonian paradigm which views the world as a mechanical device and people as organic machines operating within such a world. More recently, it includes the scientific management approach of Frederick W. Taylor which defines individuals as “human capital” to be used and disposed of at will for the benefit of an organizational enterprise or national economy. In opposition to this view the progressive educational movement was born and John Dewey as one of its champions developed a holistic approach to education and work. Over the course of time Dewey’s approach became the cornerstone of holistic education and more recently the eudaimonistic philosophical school in American culture. In parallel with Dewey’s progressivism, the field of systems thinking was developing and a prevalent belief emerged, which holds that all systems, both biological and social, evolve toward greater complexity and that a linear approach to understanding complex systems is ineffective. Therefore, it is the purpose of this paper to propose 1) a eudaimonistic definition of education and work and 2) a systems thinking approach toward human resources in order to create a more humane world.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
Liberty (not justice) is the paramount virtue of society.
Hello, Mr. Barry.
Actually, I would argue that “love” is the paramount virtue of society as subscribed by us of the eudaimonistic mind. A good reference on this argument is David Norton in his seminal work, PERSONAL DESTINIES published by Princeton University Press. In it he explains the stages of love, from love of oneself as an identifiable person to universal love which is the highest expression of love. Love is the foundation upon which justice exists. Justice being as Norton states: “The individual who possesses self-knowledge and lives by it manifests justice, first by not laying claim to goods that he or she cannot utilize, and second by actively willing such goods into the hands of those who can utilize them toward self-actualization. What is expressed in both cases is not `selflessness,’ but the proportionality of a self-responsible self that is situated in relations of interdependence with other selves that are, or ought to be, self-responsible. An individual who possesses self-knowledge and lives by its direction recognizes goods to which he or she is not entitled as distractions from his or her proper course of life…And to will to others their true utilities is at the same time the concrete expression of respect for them as ends in themselves and recognition that we stand to gain from the worthy living of others.” Hence, from a libertarian eudainomistic standpoint, justice is not external but internal and can only exist and be recognized by the individual who is able to recognize himself and others in the context of “love.”
Truth and love seem to be individual virtues while liberty and justice seem to be corporate virtues.
Hello, Mr. Barry.
Take a look at Norton’s DEMOCRACY AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT (p. 81) as he distinguishes between cardinal virtues and distributed virtues. Cardinal virtues are “indispensable to worthy living of every kind,” such as Plato’s famous four of wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. Distributed virtues are those that are “indispensable to worthy lives of some, but not all kinds.” The whole of Chapter 4 discusses this more in depth as well.