I have to ask “To what end” followed by “Does the end justify the means”. In some cases it is yes, others no and the answer is subject to change depending on circumstance.
I am not sure what you mean but suffice to say every one values ends subjectively.[/quote]
Lets say that my end is the safety and comfort of my family. There are various means to that end, but not all of them can be justified. Whether or not they can be depends on personal and social norms and values. Closer to the core are my own ethics which define what I am willing or not willing to do to meet that end.
Human beings generally do not like to labor. If this were not true then we would always work and never stop to consume the fruits of our labor. We would work only for works sake. Furthermore, we would never seek out ways to save labor – i.e., produce more with equal or less effort.[/quote]
Not necessarily true. Some people have varying degrees of altruism as it applies to work. I for one have a very strong psychological need to produce. Given a task to do or the option to pass on it, I will take a task every time, and occasionally just make shit up for the sake of doing something, rather than just sit idle.
In so far as every human being has different desires for consumption every human being will only labor until his utility (ability to consume) is satisfied beyond his capacity (physical and psychological) for labor.[/quote]
Which does not account for obsessive compulsion, or the inability to realize when enough is actually enough. Some people, given the opportunity, will work themselves literally to death.
A further point: it is only our ability to consume that decides how much we will produce. We do not produce stuff merely for something to do but so that we can consume it. In that regard we tend to only produce in proportion to what we consume. For example, a factory owner does not stock his warehouse full widgets that he does not expect to be consumed. He takes a risk just by producing these widgets in the first place.[/quote]
Then how does generational wealth occur, like Gates, Mellon, Carnegie or Rockefeller sized estates? Those guys were responsible for more production in one lifetime than even the most lavish or opulent of lifestyles could consume. Not only their own, but all that derived a living in their employment.
I think I get what you are trying to define, but what you are trying to define is somewhat polyhedral in the scope of human nature. It would have to encompass everybody from a socially defunct do nothing, which no amount of reward or suffering can motivate, to apex producers who literally change the world when their ideas become actions.
Thats a lot of ground to cover.