Enforcing a standard of what one should be expected to contribute to one's society removes a major force for shaping the society to genuine human needs, instead of the whims of its leadership.
From the POV of Maslow and his hierarchy of needs, people are not, in general, naturally lazy. They are motivated in many different ways, but motivation itself is an essential fact of life.
At a bizarre extreme, we find that people with impaired memory formation feel a draw to take part in whatever they see around them and to contribute. If you put someone with Korsakoff syndrome in a room with an unmade bed, unless they are tired enough to get into it, they are quite likely to make it. We know they are not motivated by their future self-interest or anything that complex, because their thinking has been too simplified to really consider such things. They are acting from something relatively immediate, because that is their only option.
This kind of natural drive to belong and contribute suggests that we learn to withhold ourselves from our environment. We learn that leisure indicates prestige, or that we are obligated not to seem to easily controlled, or that we are not competent to contribute well, or a dozen other messages that make us less involved than we would be in our naive state.
Shaping this drive for our common welfare is important, but it is not an individual's problem. It is the culture's job to involve individuals in its process. If it does not succeed at that, it should not succeed as a culture.
From that point of view, if the individuals contributing do not see the result in a meaningful way, or if they are too busy competing to cooperate, or if they are too afraid to make mistakes, or if they otherwise fall prey to those psychological forces that damp our need to belong and contribute, that is a problem in the structure of the system.
When leaving is an option, we may wish to encourage those who do not fit into our system, but may fit into another to leave. In the interest of peace, we may express disapproval of them. But if we do so too readily, we are not allowing the full diversity of corrective feedback to improve our culture. And that is an old solution we have used too much. More and more, leaving really is not an option. So in large, dense systems (like global capitalism?) it is really in our best interests to figure out what would engage those people, or whether we have broken them somehow.
There is also an insidious property to this notion, in that it tends to be emphasized as a judgement of those with less resources. It is easier to tell manual laborers that they are lazy than it is to tell that to bankers, because we all have a feeling that we understand manual labor, and don't understand finance. But we cannot be objective about this. Since leading well is notably hard, but we can't know how hard, when overemphasized, this notion displaces blame away from control, and over time solidifies despised underclasses while whitewashing over the failures of those in charge. Therefore it is naturally encouraged by those who benefit from it -- the elites whom it generally lets off the hook. So it should always be questioned.