Page:Philosophical Review Volume 20.djvu/273

259 the difference will appear either in amount done, or the quality of the work. Such differences in many cases do count and are reckoned with; hence the difference in the rate of pay on the one hand (a very serious way of indicating the difference between individual workmen), and the introduction of piece-work labour on the other, which is also a way of taking advantage of and bringing out the individual differences between workmen. It is questionable if under any circumstances it is even theoretically possible for two workmen to do exactly the same bit of work without some characteristic difference appearing either in the time, quality, or quantity of the work. But whether this speculative question can be settled or not, practice shows that the individual and his labour vary together. The man in performing his task is realizing an end of his own, irrespective of the kind of material he is working with, be it iron, wood, or coal, or anything we please; and in realizing an end of his own, he is to that extent realizing his life in a specific way.

From this we see (1) that in all labour individuality counts, and has to be reckoned with; (2) that since a man is a moral being, is never merely a means for others, but in part at least an end in himself, a labourer can never in fact, and should never even in intention, toil merely for wages, but in order to do his work well, and to do it as a way of fulfilling his life. If he toil for anything else, e.g., for wages, he is making himself a means for others who pay him, and in that sense enslaving himself (a position which so many workmen very readily forget). (3) We see too that it is the business of the labourer not merely to compel others to recognise the ethical importance of himself and his work for society, but to recognize for himself the individual responsibilities under which he is placed in performing his task. Far too often we find that labour questions are discussed by labourers altogether from the first point of view. Labourers tend to ignore altogether the second, which is indeed so important that until and unless the labourer is aware of the moral responsibility under which he rests for the perfromanceperformance [sic] of his own task, it is worse than useless, it is sheer impertinence, to ask society to further his interests. (4) It follows, again, that since in the performance of his task