Groups of very different appearance can be infected with and protective of the same vice–sloth. In some cases it is incentivized by he who claims to help, but we still must hold the one growing in sloth responsible for the acceptance of problematic aid. This is the area of welfare aid directed at corporations and individuals in what those who have aggressed against the productive in order to secure that which they give call poverty. Poverty is a relative term according to the standard used for its measure. One can be impoverished in the United Sates today and have excess calories, climate controlled shelter, transportation, screens to stare at, and free medical care all while being absolved from contributing to the costs of all of these provisions. Sloth is a temptation (I do not say a necessity) of the corporation or impoverished individual accepting subsidy from the aggressors called government.
Even among those who have traditionally been something of a bastion of high calling, high standards, work, and still have within their founding documents explicit claims like, “To follow the way a person must carry his cross (work?)”, I have noticed an insipid rationalization and promotion of sloth. This has been called the heresy of works.
The claim, theoretically, is that one who expresses is mistaken if he represents in his expression that he is able to achieve transformation without help from the god. The practical assimilation of this doctrine, which is theoretically as sound as a doctrine can be under good interpretation (interpretation is everything for intellectual analysis, and those that try to protect doctrine seek first to prevent the work of interpretation while protecting arbitrarily the interpretation they prefer) has been to promote sloth and denigrate work and effort.
Reader, it is no accident that Martin Luther tried to rid the canon of his club the book titled James who is where the essentiality of faith’s equivalence to production (which requires work) is asserted. I do not wish to argue with the apostles of the church of sloth. They may ostracize whoever they wish, and it will be to their own community detriment if they ostracize the worker. Production must come first.
For my own moving forward I was encouraged by Kant. In his magisterial treatment of religion under reason Religion Thur the Limits of Reason Alone he comes to the following conclusion: first, let us accept that we can neither prove that the god helps nor prove that he does not. Second, under the hope that the god is willing to extend help is it not necessary that there are conditions for said help and wouldn’t it be my task to make myself as worthy of help as I can?
Kant is eminently reasonable. The moral life of good will in and of itself is worth it from his perspective. He shows the way to transcendence and even expresses some of the fundamental laws of transcendent reality (Don’t harm, don’t break commitments, develop your potential, help others). These fundamental laws of reality contain all of the law and the prophets. His recommendation that I make myself worthy of aid is enough for me. The work is good if the god doesn’t help. The work is all I have! And, if the god does help, then it is only reasonable that I make myself worthy of such help.
Onward and upward. No shirking. No loafing.