W wydawnictwie Tirant lo Blanch w Walencji ukazała się właśnie książka pod redakcją profesora Jose María Puyol Montero pt. "Human Dignity, Vulnerability and Law. Studies on the Dignity of Human Life" z moim rozdziałem nt. "Laziness as an Anthropological Challenge for Law in the Time of the Pandemic" (ss. 79–108) – wszystko w ramach współpracy z Real Colegio Complutense w Harvard University.
In the pandemic era, laziness might be in reality one of the greatest challenges for the societies of the world. If it has been observed that sloth is indeed in our present times already so widespread, there is no reason to complacently accept the theory that laziness will not be a challenge in the subsequent post-pandemic era. The answer to the question of how to combat laziness is not actually within the bailiwick of lawyers. However, they must seriously consider the legal consequences of laziness, provoked and intensified by the notorious release from duties and the loosening of social ties that life under the pandemic has witnessed. Sloth, like the matter of some other great subjects in the field of law —as unjust enrichment and the abuse of rights, proves at the same time both easy and not easy to describe. With regard to laziness, the description is easy inasmuch as the words describing this phenomenon come from everyday language. The difficulty is caused by the lack of an unambiguously established terminology. Then, one particular question that must be asked concerns the challenges that laziness creates for private law. It is most certainly worth starting with Roman law in order to answer the question. Ancient legal sources suggest that sloth was put alongside the generally understood carelessness and negligence when it comes to explaining what fault really is as a premise of liability for damages, and even more as a standard of expectations and duty in the performance of contractual provisions. Laziness, in at least some circumstances, becomes the express opposite of diligence. In private law sloth results in financial consequences. These will not always be borne directly by the slothful person himself but rather by those responsible for the person or for the resulting state of affairs, as in the case, for example, of a guardian or a seller. The study of the manifestations of laziness stigmatized by the law invites us to summon up and strengthen the motivation for persistent and tireless work, understood as a virtue and practiced with wise moderation.
