The Immorality of calling lazy people immoral

[LennStar]

Since two thread are going having at he moment about morality and laziness/work ethic/production and such, I want to put up a big sign:

Saying someone is immoral because he is lazy is immoral!

Change my mind! ;)

Why am I saying this? Easy:

Immoral can only be the result of one's intentions when acting. An explosion that kills a hundred people is not immoral for exploding. A blind person is not immoral for not seeing something.

You will now say: But lazy is a decision that is not the same as being blind!

To which I answer: No, it is (at least partly) the same. Because, like all other traits, laziness or industriousnes is based on genes (Please no fight to which extent).

There are lazy (and crazy working) individuals in all species. This is simply an evolutionary benefit: In bad years, if you are too actice, you die, and the ultra lazy win and procreate. In good years on the other hand, the active individuals have a better life.

So if laziness is at least partially genetic, it is immoral to compare someone else to your potential of industriousness. That person may have simply a lower possible level due to genes. Or in the situation the person is in, his genes tell him to play it low effort.
And you can (in most cases) only tell which strategy is better in hindsight. Making judgements now is simply putting your bias in place of reason. Therefore the judgement is immoral.

Comments? :D

[ctuser1]

I subscribe to the existentialist definition of "bad faith":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism)

Per this, lazy = immoral.

Humans are sentinent beings with agency. Choosing to not use this agency and performing due diligence is still a "choice" - and hence intentional.
 

[Milizard]

Interesting. I haven't caught the other threads the op refers to, but I agree with the statements made in it. I would also propose the following statement to examine:
Perceived laziness is  actually the perception of poor physical and/or mental health.

[RetiredAt63]

Interesting. I haven't caught the other threads the op refers to, but I agree with the statements made in it. I would also propose the following statement to examine:
Perceived laziness is  actually the perception of poor physical and/or mental health.

Another possibility: The offered/perceived reward for more effort is not worth the extra effort to get it, from the viewpoint of the person being expected to make the extra effort.

[SotI]

Another possibility: The offered/perceived reward for more effort is not worth the extra effort to get it, from the viewpoint of the person being expected to make the extra effort.

This.
And don't forget how deeply ingrained habits are - and the extra (motivational) effort it takes to break out of a rut.

[J Boogie]

Or in the situation the person is in, his genes tell him to play it low effort.

That seems counterintuitive. Laziness seems to be a learned behavior. Observe the industriousness of those who grew up in households with domestic employees. They are slow to develop the domestic best practices that responsible parents usually impart on their children. How many of us heard things like "Put your dish in the dishwasher! Don't leave it on the counter! Don't track dirt in the house!"

The reason for this is because they have internalized the idea that the work will just kind of get done and the mess will just kind of go away. If they cohabitate with someone who has a higher intolerance of mess, their roommate/partner's cleaning efforts will reinforce the idea that laziness is the right idea.

Politically speaking, the extension of this idea is that some have internalized the idea that checks will just kind of come in and any action to the contrary will jeopardize this pattern they have grown accustomed to.

[Milizard]

Perhaps  laziness  should  be  defined  here. 

[OtherJen]

Perhaps  laziness  should  be  defined  here.

Seconded. I feel like I'm missing something.

[trollwithamustache]

Perhaps  laziness  should  be  defined  here.

Seconded. I feel like I'm missing something.

are all the ER/FI people here lazy? does that make us immoral?

[RetiredAt63]

Laziness is defined by the person who is calling someone else lazy, because they want more effort/work performed by the "lazy" person.  Which is a moving target.

I know, colour me cynical.  ;-/

[cooking]

Agreed that a definition would help here.  I think back to summers I occasionally worked in factories.  My output was almost always fairly low.  When I helped my mother in the kitchen with canning or preparing vegetables in large quantity, she would always say it was a good thing I didn't plan on earning a living with manual tasks, or I'd starve to death.  I was always a slow typist.  In my mind, I always attributed all this to my laziness.  Whether it was caused by my need for perfection, my mind wandering off track, or just plain physical slowness, it was definitely a part of my immutable characteristics for as long as I can remember.  It's just me, and I accepted that pretty early.  If I had been forced to build the pyramids, my genes probably would have died off before the first day ended.  Or would I have been able to speed up my movements under duress to stay alive?

 I can remember some fellow factory workers complaining about an immigrant woman who worked so fast that the owners set new, higher output quotas on the belief that if one person could work at that rate, everyone else should be able to also.  There was a lot of resentment against the woman because it was said that she had burned herself out and couldn't even keep up with the new quotas herself after a while.  So was everyone else lazy, or did she become lazy?

[Metalcat]

Yeah...uh, this is just super confusing, and I don't really understand.

I also don't really believe in laziness. Human behaviour usually has a pretty understandable underpinning, a lot of what is perceived as laziness is actually a manifestation of hopelessness, or the lack of faith that effort will produce a worthwhile result.

Within that paradigm, inaction is quite rational.

The paradigm is usually the barrier to success, not a fault of capacity of the person.

As for morality, I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything, but writing people off because they don't behave as you think they should definitely shows a lack of compassion and understanding, which one could argue is immoral. I wouldn't argue that, but one could.

Most people are very very low on compassion because they don't understand human existence much further from their own. It's not immoral necessarily, it's just ignorant, which we all are to varying degrees.

[Villanelle]

Yeah...uh, this is just super confusing, and I don't really understand.

I also don't really believe in laziness. Human behaviour usually has a pretty understandable underpinning, a lot of what is perceived as laziness is actually a manifestation of hopelessness, or the lack of faith that effort will produce a worthwhile result.

Within that paradigm, inaction is quite rational.

The paradigm is usually the barrier to success, not a fault of capacity of the person.

As for morality, I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything, but writing people off because they don't behave as you think they should definitely shows a lack of compassion and understanding, which one could argue is immoral. I wouldn't argue that, but one could.

Most people are very very low on compassion because they don't understand human existence much further from their own. It's not immoral necessarily, it's just ignorant, which we all are to varying degrees.

I spent a lot of years thinking I was lazy and feeling pretty darn ashamed about it.  I am from a family of do-ers.  My mother is almost incapable of rest.  She could be using that time to bake bread to give to a neighbor or make jewelry or write a letter or...  My sister is the same.   I am decided NOT like that.  I truly thought it was laziness that caused me not to call the DMV to sort out an issue for weeks and months, sometimes even accruing a late fee.  Or that made me put off calling the dentist to make an appointment, or caused me to plop on the sofa for hours following a foray out to run errands.

Eventually, I realized it was just another manifestation of my pretty significant anxiety.  Just that realization alone was a huge weight lifted.  Running those errands meant people-ing, which is exhausting and over stimulating for me.  I needed that quiet time to recover.  Just understanding that freed me from a lot (but not all) of the shame and in some ways actually eased a bit of the anxiety, thereby decreasing the "laziness".

I do think some laziness does exist.  "If I don't put the dishes in the dishwasher, I can spend more time with my friends or reading my book.  I know someone I live with will do the dishes if I just let the sit long enough, so I choose not to do my fair share because it's time or energy I can have for pet projects."  That sort of thing.  And I do think that is immoral, on a binary scale of morality.  But I think most "laziness" is actually something else.

I'm quite sure my family, all of whom are intense extroverts, thought me lazy, and probably still do to some extent because they just can't comprehend that I experience the world in such a drastically different way than they do. 

[oldladystache]

I'm lazy by most definitions, but i can't imagine anyone thinking I'm immoral.

I try to find an easier way to do what needs to be done, or if it really needs to be done. I put things off until the last minute. I don't depend on anyone to take care of me. I'm generous and helpful.

What am I missing?

[J Boogie]

For the purposes of this thread, one definition of laziness could be:  the pattern or tendency to exhibit low-effort behavior at the expense of others.

For example I own a duplex. Upstairs tenants are my in laws. During the warmer months we have a policy that trips to the laundry room in the basement should use the exterior basement entrance instead of cutting through our unit. I don't mind a visit but our unit is not a hallway and some privacy is nice.

Cutting through our unit against our wishes is a good example of laziness at someone else's expense. Chronic lateness is another good example of antisocial behavior that can correspond to mental illness.

"Laziness" at one's own expense shouldn't be judged as immoral but rather a lifestyle preference. Some prefer to spend more time relaxing and that's fine.

[RetiredAt63]

For the purposes of this thread, one definition of laziness could be:  the pattern or tendency to exhibit low-effort behavior at the expense of others.

For example I own a duplex. Upstairs tenants are my in laws. During the warmer months we have a policy that trips to the laundry room in the basement should use the exterior basement entrance instead of cutting through our unit. I don't mind a visit but our unit is not a hallway and some privacy is nice.

Cutting through our unit against our wishes is a good example of laziness at someone else's expense. Chronic lateness is another good example of antisocial behavior that can correspond to mental illness.

"Laziness" at one's own expense shouldn't be judged as immoral but rather a lifestyle preference. Some prefer to spend more time relaxing and that's fine.

I would not call cutting through your unit laziness so much as selfishness (i"t's easier for me") and lack of respect for stated preferences/boundaries.  Chronic lateness has several causes, so making a judgement really shouldn't happen until the causes are clear.

[J Boogie]

For the purposes of this thread, one definition of laziness could be:  the pattern or tendency to exhibit low-effort behavior at the expense of others.

For example I own a duplex. Upstairs tenants are my in laws. During the warmer months we have a policy that trips to the laundry room in the basement should use the exterior basement entrance instead of cutting through our unit. I don't mind a visit but our unit is not a hallway and some privacy is nice.

Cutting through our unit against our wishes is a good example of laziness at someone else's expense. Chronic lateness is another good example of antisocial behavior that can correspond to mental illness.

"Laziness" at one's own expense shouldn't be judged as immoral but rather a lifestyle preference. Some prefer to spend more time relaxing and that's fine.

I would not call cutting through your unit laziness so much as selfishness (i"t's easier for me") and lack of respect for stated preferences/boundaries.  Chronic lateness has several causes, so making a judgement really shouldn't happen until the causes are clear.

Well, perhaps selfishness is a larger umbrella term under which both laziness and lateness can fit into.

Naturally there are mental illnesses like anxiety, narcissism, bipolar, etc that can mitigate some of the responsibility associated with the selfish behaviors, and I'm in no way asserting that the mentally ill need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps or some such sentiment. But there are plenty of people who do not suffer from mental illness who display these selfish behaviors and I think that's the most fitting way to think about laziness as it is being discussed in this thread.

[cooking]

I agree that lateness is generally different from laziness, and the former can often be more selfishness, disorganization, lack of consideration for others, etc.  It takes just as much time and effort to get from point A to point B if you leave 15 min. earlier rather than later (absent avoiding rush hour traffic or something like that), so why would it be lazy to leave the house 15 min. later?  Unless your destination is a work occasion as opposed to a social event, for example.  And even then, if you have to complete a certain amount of work, you'd just have to work later.

[LennStar]

I subscribe to the existentialist definition of "bad faith":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism)

Per this, lazy = immoral.

Humans are sentinent beings with agency. Choosing to not use this agency and performing due diligence is still a "choice" - and hence intentional.

But being lazy might well this agency exercised.
If humanity would have been a lot less materially productive, nature would be better - and with that our chances of continued existance.
Maybe the "lazy" person decided that just doing nothing - no effort, guaranteed good result - is better than bustle and hope we will find a solution.

Laziness seems to be a learned behavior. Observe the industriousness of those who grew up in households with domestic employees. They are slow to develop the domestic best practices that responsible parents usually impart on their children. How many of us heard things like "Put your dish in the dishwasher! Don't leave it on the counter! Don't track dirt in the house!"

The reason for this is because they have internalized the idea that the work will just kind of get done and the mess will just kind of go away. If they cohabitate with someone who has a higher intolerance of mess, their roommate/partner's cleaning efforts will reinforce the idea that laziness is the right idea.

In that case the lazy person was definitely the more effective one and the rommate the stupid one, expending energy for nothing.

Perhaps  laziness  should  be  defined  here.

 
While that would take away the fun, that is the point of the exercise I made here. Because the word laziness is consitantly used with a huge load of bias. We call people lazy that do less than we think they should do, irregardless of their actual situation. (What RetiredAt63 said)
Like the racists calling Africans lazy just because they don't work in the sun at 50°C.

As for morality, I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything

Calling someone lazy is always a moral judgement.

For the purposes of this thread, one definition of laziness could be:  the pattern or tendency to exhibit low-effort behavior at the expense of others.
"Laziness" at one's own expense shouldn't be judged as immoral but rather a lifestyle preference. Some prefer to spend more time relaxing and that's fine.

Good try at definition, but as you yourself wrote, there may be no expense of others, or oneself, and it could even be beneficial, and you would still be called lazy.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Haven't researched this at all, but I strongly suspect that laziness only became something that could be given a moral judgement around about the time of the industrial revolution, ie when the boss's income depended on his worker's efforts. Prior to this, the bulk of the population 'worked' in quite different ways. For example, people might work land in return for accommodation and use of a small patch of land for their family's requirements. Or a family might run a business to fund their existence. People might loan themselves out as servants or labourers in return for food, board and a tiny amount of money. Craftsmen produced and sold their product. You might offer yourself as apprentice to provide labour for a craftsman, in return for your keep and learning. The idea of getting paid per hour is only a few hundred years old. The idea of profiting off people's backs used to be frowned upon - it was not the way to treat your inferiors, noblesse oblige and all that. Sounds nice, doesn't it? Until you couldn't work. Then you just starved, unless you could get yourself on some charity from your parish. People couldn't travel for work without permission from your local authorities, and itinerants for rounded up and booted out of the village, so not much help there. And if you resorted to criminality, you'd be hung for things like poaching. Probably not that nice after all. Although I don't know that they would look upon our society as all that pleasant either......

[J Boogie]

Haven't researched this at all, but I strongly suspect that laziness only became something that could be given a moral judgement around about the time of the industrial revolution, ie when the boss's income depended on his worker's efforts.

That doesn't sound right. The Catholic Church has long included "sloth" as one of the seven deadly sins and Jesus has at least one parable that involves a lazy servant or something like that.

[trollwithamustache]

I've also used the work "lazy" when encouraging the offspring to find a more efficient way to do things... have I sent them spiraling down a path of sin and no redemption?

[ctuser1]

The word "lazyness" is not always used in the negative context.

e.g. you have to be "lazy" in a sense to be a good code monkey. I hate, hate, hate doing something manually. It just makes me scream in rage if I have to do anything manually, even if that is simply "copy-paste-five cells in excel and be done with it"!!

I'd much rather write up an excel formula, create a template and save that for future reuse, and then do what I was about to do - spending 3X the time it would have taken me to do it manually in the first place.

You have to intuitively hate inefficiency like this to be a good coder/engineer etc. The word used for this is often "lazyness" -> hatred of manual effort and inefficiency. It's not the classical definition or usage - but it is there.

[LennStar]

Haven't researched this at all, but I strongly suspect that laziness only became something that could be given a moral judgement around about the time of the industrial revolution, ie when the boss's income depended on his worker's efforts.

That doesn't sound right. The Catholic Church has long included "sloth" as one of the seven deadly sins and Jesus has at least one parable that involves a lazy servant or something like that.

Note the word "servant". A servant was in debt of one sort or another (even if it was just his working power), and paying of one's debt was always a moral pressure, so much that in many language debt and "he has done something bad" is the same word. (And in fact that was the core problem for many societies - when monetary debt became a moral obligation. Because the result was debt slavery, even worse than war slaves.)
If you want to argue about lazy in old times, you can only use free people as example. Which, I admit, makes it quite a lot harder to find ;)

[JGS1980]

I don't see myself as lazy, I just know that I'd rather be doing something else! That something else may or may not be sleeping or lounging.

The whole immorality issue is puritan roots American bullshittery as far as I'm concerned. This is why people spend THEIR ENTIRE weekend mowing the lawn or doing home projects instead of, say, relaxing and recovering in some form of leisure pursuit.

Personally, if it may you feel good to do those things and doesn't wear you down -> Godspeed! But don't you dare judge me for the manner in which I choose to relax/recover.

[DadJokes]

I'd start by questioning one of the original points in the premise: that laziness is genetic. From what I've seen, it's far more of a learned behavior than a genetic trait.

I used to be a very hard worker, because it was a trait I learned from my father. As I grew older, I learned that extra effort is often not rewarded with anything other than more work. So I became a lot more lazy in regards to work. I'll typically do enough to not get fired, and that's it (I might actually be Peter from Office Space).

For the purposes of this thread, one definition of laziness could be:  the pattern or tendency to exhibit low-effort behavior at the expense of others.

If this is the definition, then I would argue that laziness is immoral. If I don't clean up after myself because I'm lazy, then my wife has to do it. That is the same as me selfishly saying that my time is more important than her time.

If the laziness does not directly affect others, then I would argue that it isn't immoral. If I don't feel like bettering my life by seeking out a better career (we'll assume that I'm a minimum wage worker), then I'm not immoral. If in turn I expect others to subsidize my life, then I think we start to approach being immoral, though I don't know where the line really is.

[J Boogie]

Haven't researched this at all, but I strongly suspect that laziness only became something that could be given a moral judgement around about the time of the industrial revolution, ie when the boss's income depended on his worker's efforts.

That doesn't sound right. The Catholic Church has long included "sloth" as one of the seven deadly sins and Jesus has at least one parable that involves a lazy servant or something like that.

Note the word "servant". A servant was in debt of one sort or another (even if it was just his working power), and paying of one's debt was always a moral pressure, so much that in many language debt and "he has done something bad" is the same word. (And in fact that was the core problem for many societies - when monetary debt became a moral obligation. Because the result was debt slavery, even worse than war slaves.)
If you want to argue about lazy in old times, you can only use free people as example. Which, I admit, makes it quite a lot harder to find ;)

Oh no, the idea that laziness is sinful is richly splattered throughout the bible - especially in the context of subsistence farming and more broadly within the context of doing labor that the individual and their family would be the ones benefitting from (as opposed to being unique to a servant-master dynamic).

https://www.openbible.info/topics/laziness

Proverbs 20:4
The sluggard does not plow in the autumn; he will seek at harvest and have nothing.

Proverbs 19:15
Slothfulness casts into a deep sleep, and an idle person will suffer hunger.

Ecclesiastes 10:18
Through sloth the roof sinks in, and through indolence the house leaks.

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

[PKFFW]

Haven't researched this at all, but I strongly suspect that laziness only became something that could be given a moral judgement around about the time of the industrial revolution, ie when the boss's income depended on his worker's efforts.

That doesn't sound right. The Catholic Church has long included "sloth" as one of the seven deadly sins and Jesus has at least one parable that involves a lazy servant or something like that.

It's much more likely the idea of laziness originated around the time of the agricultural revolution rather than the industrial.  Agriculture is a much more labour-intensive lifestyle than hunter-gatherer and generally if you did not hunt or gather you did not eat whereas with an agricultural lifestyle there is much more room for the "lazy" person to still benefit from the fruits of other's labour.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Haven't researched this at all, but I strongly suspect that laziness only became something that could be given a moral judgement around about the time of the industrial revolution, ie when the boss's income depended on his worker's efforts.

That doesn't sound right. The Catholic Church has long included "sloth" as one of the seven deadly sins and Jesus has at least one parable that involves a lazy servant or something like that.

It's much more likely the idea of laziness originated around the time of the agricultural revolution rather than the industrial.  Agriculture is a much more labour-intensive lifestyle than hunter-gatherer and generally if you did not hunt or gather you did not eat whereas with an agricultural lifestyle there is much more room for the "lazy" person to still benefit from the fruits of other's labour.

I think sloth in the bible refers to people neglecting their obligations to god. It's not so much about staying in bed util noon!

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Haven't researched this at all, but I strongly suspect that laziness only became something that could be given a moral judgement around about the time of the industrial revolution, ie when the boss's income depended on his worker's efforts.

That doesn't sound right. The Catholic Church has long included "sloth" as one of the seven deadly sins and Jesus has at least one parable that involves a lazy servant or something like that.

My understanding of sloth in the bible is that it refers mainly to an individual's obligations to god. It's not laziness. It's a deeper soullessness. Even interpreted more broadly, it's more about a lack of care for oneself (as god's precious creation), one's family and the possessions that have been gifted to that individual by god. Nothing whatsoever to do with sleeping until noon.

I could be entirely wrong. I'm not a religious person, I'm coming at this from study done as part of a degree in Cultural Theory.

[PKFFW]

Haven't researched this at all, but I strongly suspect that laziness only became something that could be given a moral judgement around about the time of the industrial revolution, ie when the boss's income depended on his worker's efforts.

That doesn't sound right. The Catholic Church has long included "sloth" as one of the seven deadly sins and Jesus has at least one parable that involves a lazy servant or something like that.

It's much more likely the idea of laziness originated around the time of the agricultural revolution rather than the industrial.  Agriculture is a much more labour-intensive lifestyle than hunter-gatherer and generally if you did not hunt or gather you did not eat whereas with an agricultural lifestyle there is much more room for the "lazy" person to still benefit from the fruits of other's labour.

I think sloth in the bible refers to people neglecting their obligations to god. It's not so much about staying in bed util noon!

Sorry, I responded to the post I did merely to mention when the idea of lazy is more likely to have arisen.  Probably not the best post to respond to for clarity's sake.

The bible and sloth may be related to laziness but I didn't really mean to comment in support of that idea.

[John Galt incarnate!]

For the purposes of this thread, one definition of laziness could be:  the pattern or tendency to exhibit low-effort behavior at the expense of others.

One definition of laziness that parallels yours  could  be
one's willful failure to perform  their  part of the social contract which is to live their life and manage  their affairs so as not to impose  burdens on society.

[LennStar]

For the purposes of this thread, one definition of laziness could be:  the pattern or tendency to exhibit low-effort behavior at the expense of others.

One definition of laziness that parallels yours  could  be
one's willful failure to perform  their  part of the social contract which is to live their life and manage  their affairs so as not to impose  burdens on society.

I like that one, but it is still on square 1 - that you generelly only know in hindsight if it was a burden.

[nessness]

For the purposes of this thread, one definition of laziness could be:  the pattern or tendency to exhibit low-effort behavior at the expense of others.

One definition of laziness that parallels yours  could  be
one's willful failure to perform  their  part of the social contract which is to live their life and manage  their affairs so as not to impose  burdens on society.

I like that one, but it is still on square 1 - that you generelly only know in hindsight if it was a burden.

What situations are you thinking of where you only know in hindsight that your laziness burdened others?

Sure, people might occasionally burden others on accident, but it seems pretty obvious that if you throw your trash on the ground, it will burden the people who have to clean it up; if you don't do your assigned tasks at work, it will burden your coworkers who will have to pick up the slack; if you don't help with household chores, it will burden the people you live with who will have to do more, and so on.

[Just Joe]

The whole immorality issue is puritan roots American bullshittery as far as I'm concerned. This is why people spend THEIR ENTIRE weekend mowing the lawn or doing home projects instead of, say, relaxing and recovering in some form of leisure pursuit.

Maybe there is hidden sarcasm in your statement. I'm usually blind to that. ;)

We like living in the country. Either we occasionally tackle the green plants growing on our land or we lose our ability to have a yard. We'll have a field with waist high grass our aged lawn machine won't be able to cut. That could lead to a broken machine that I must then repair at some cost.

It is a balancing act between idle admiration of the view and keeping it all in check.

As for the house - we either maintain it or live with it falling apart around us. I'd rather recover its full value someday when we sell it.

A person has to pace themselves. Then you can both complete the work and have time to recover. Good for the body and mind.

[LennStar]

What situations are you thinking of where you only know in hindsight that your laziness burdened others?

Typically "Lazy" is used for people not working.
Means for not using up finite resources to produce stuff that isn't needed while destroying the base of our living.
Get the direction?

[dcheesi]

For the purposes of this thread, one definition of laziness could be:  the pattern or tendency to exhibit low-effort behavior at the expense of others.

One definition of laziness that parallels yours  could  be
one's willful failure to perform  their  part of the social contract which is to live their life and manage  their affairs so as not to impose  burdens on society.

I like that one, but it is still on square 1 - that you generelly only know in hindsight if it was a burden.

What situations are you thinking of where you only know in hindsight that your laziness burdened others?

Sure, people might occasionally burden others on accident, but it seems pretty obvious that if you throw your trash on the ground, it will burden the people who have to clean it up; if you don't do your assigned tasks at work, it will burden your coworkers who will have to pick up the slack; if you don't help with household chores, it will burden the people you live with who will have to do more, and so on.

Not sure if this is what the previous poster meant, but perhaps lack of due diligence and/or preparation? E.g., you didn't put in the work to find out what the potential pitfalls were, which only becomes apparent when you subsequently fall into one of those pits and need help getting out. Or you didn't save up for a "rainy day", or for an inevitable Winter that seems so far away... and then you have to lean on others when your reserves "unexpectedly" run out.

EDIT: Of course that brings up the counterpoint of asking how much diligence & planning is "enough"? Should people be blamed for failing to foresee things that were truly improbable? How much extra should we have to set aside (and how many more hours/years should we have to work) to effectively self-insure against unexpected life events and/or larger catastrophes?

This is a topic that's touched on a lot in this forum, most frequently around the subject of Safe Withdrawal Rates, etc. Is 4% safe "enough"? Is a99% success rate on cFIREsim (or the current flavor of the week) good enough, or must we insist on 100%? What about "Black Swans" with no historical precedent?

We often think of these questions in terms of pure practicality/self-interest, but I think there's often a sense of morality/responsibility lurking behind it, even if it's just responsibility to our future selves. In the end, it's impossible to control for all possibilities, so there's really no such thing as 100% certainty or preparedness; every person has to draw their own line somewhere, and declare it "good enough". Often where we end up drawing that line is determined by asking what a "reasonable" person would be satisfied with, which IMHO roughly translates to "at what point would I feel blameless if an event occurred that plunged myself & my family into poverty in spite of my efforts?"

[cooking]

LennStarr, if you want to cut through all the (admittedly interesting) philosophical discussion here and just know what others think of your in-laws intrusion into your private space for their convenience, I'm willing to venture an opinion.  Depending upon your prior financial and other arrangements with them, I think they are sort of taking advantage of you.  If they are paying fair market value for their apt., and you told them that as a courtesy to them you'd allow them to enter your space in the winter in order to get to the laundry area, and they are now coming through even in the warm months, it's kind of give them an inch and they take a mile territory.  But if their rent is being subsidized AND they chose to impose on you by entering your private space in the warmer months. that is way worse.  Just my 2 cents, of course.

[LennStar]

LennStarr, if you want to cut through all the (admittedly interesting) philosophical discussion here and just know what others think of your in-laws intrusion into your private space for their convenience, I'm willing to venture an opinion.  Depending upon your prior financial and other arrangements with them, I think they are sort of taking advantage of you.  If they are paying fair market value for their apt., and you told them that as a courtesy to them you'd allow them to enter your space in the winter in order to get to the laundry area, and they are now coming through even in the warm months, it's kind of give them an inch and they take a mile territory.  But if their rent is being subsidized AND they chose to impose on you by entering your private space in the warmer months. that is way worse.  Just my 2 cents, of course.

@cooking 1. only one r, 2. wrong person

[nessness]

Thanks @dcheesi - I was thinking of laziness more in a day-to-day context than a long-term planning context, but that makes sense.

[jrhampt]

The word "lazyness" is not always used in the negative context.

e.g. you have to be "lazy" in a sense to be a good code monkey. I hate, hate, hate doing something manually. It just makes me scream in rage if I have to do anything manually, even if that is simply "copy-paste-five cells in excel and be done with it"!!

I'd much rather write up an excel formula, create a template and save that for future reuse, and then do what I was about to do - spending 3X the time it would have taken me to do it manually in the first place.

You have to intuitively hate inefficiency like this to be a good coder/engineer etc. The word used for this is often "lazyness" -> hatred of manual effort and inefficiency. It's not the classical definition or usage - but it is there.

Haha, same. 

[J Boogie]

LennStarr, if you want to cut through all the (admittedly interesting) philosophical discussion here and just know what others think of your in-laws intrusion into your private space for their convenience, I'm willing to venture an opinion.  Depending upon your prior financial and other arrangements with them, I think they are sort of taking advantage of you.  If they are paying fair market value for their apt., and you told them that as a courtesy to them you'd allow them to enter your space in the winter in order to get to the laundry area, and they are now coming through even in the warm months, it's kind of give them an inch and they take a mile territory.  But if their rent is being subsidized AND they chose to impose on you by entering your private space in the warmer months. that is way worse.  Just my 2 cents, of course.

@cooking 1. only one r, 2. wrong person

Can confirm, am the hallway occupant.

I appreciate the 2 cents but I was not fishing for any personal advice - just thinking of the easiest example off the top of my head. If you were to ask my in laws to provide an example of laziness, perhaps my spotty record of salting the walkways in the wintertime might be mentioned ;)

[cooking]

Sorry Lennstar, I see it was J Boogie's situation.  My own laziness caused me to not re-check the previous posts carefully.

[cooking]

Sorry about getting your username wrong again by not capitalizing the "S",  LennStar.  Again, laziness.  It's not quite as offensive as spelling a person's actual name wrong, I hope.

[LennStar]

Sorry about getting your username wrong again by not capitalizing the "S",  LennStar.  Again, laziness.  It's not quite as offensive as spelling a person's actual name wrong, I hope.

Pro Tip: There is an edit function.
And I don't really care anyway ;) As long as everyone knows who is meant... I can assure you, my name memory is worse than your writing :D