Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?

Ok, so I think my OP was sufficiently unclear, — schopenhauer1

I get what your asking, just trying to make life not seem so devoid of any real value by including the fact not all that glitters is gold and sometimes it's better the devil you know in my counterarguments.

In my mind the consequentialist vs. virtual theorist scenario pretty much sums up anything going on in my head as it pertains to the OP.

Put another way:
Is the value of "being useful at the workplace" more important than having a good character? This is NOT meant as a comparison of different worker types, but in terms of generally what is a more important value.

In my mind the consequentialist vs. virtual theorist scenario pretty much sums up anything going on in my head as it pertains to the OP. — Outlander

What happens if the only measure of goodness was being good at the workplace? Would that be sufficient to you? In a way, what else matters in today's society? Imagine if there were no good outputers like Larry. Taken to the extreme. Society itself collapses without Larrys. Using a little Kantian CI.. A society without highly efficient outputers is one that won't be anymore.

If the world had all Larrys we would have a lot more meanness but we would have a lot more output. So in that case, is a meaner world with better technology be better than a kinder world with much less technology/efficiency/output.. and perhaps one that would be on the verge of not existing anymore due to inefficiency and ineptness?

That's really simplistic, and I'm not asking you to bring in those theories, but that's just an example of how to build an argument around one or the other. — schopenhauer1

I will not pick any of them.

I will not pick any of them. — L'éléphant

Why? Larry seems like a good one to pick, no? Assholes that make great X output still make great X output.. Isn't X output that is useful to society important?

In fact, Bob could die and it affects no one's tangible goods and services that they can use to live more comfortably, safely, and happily and provides jobs and the company he works at more profit. Who gives a shit about Bob (the alternative movie to What about Bob :rofl:)? If he wasn't born, what would that matter (other than his mommy, assuming he had any family)?

Why? Larry seems like a good one to pick, no? Assholes that make great X output still make great X output.. Isn't X output that is useful to society important? — schopenhauer1

lol.

:smile:

What happens if the only measure of goodness was being good at the workplace? — schopenhauer1

Well, sure. As you've mentioned I am a consequentalist, no I see it as a "realist" for the reasons explained in previous posts in this thread. Every action has consequences. But, in the hypothetical unrealistic closed example of "within the workplace" assuming it has no effect or bearing on society or that I have no concern for that society if not just for the argument, Larry would be preferred yes.

Now is when I would go on "but at what cost?" ... narrate the Handmaiden's Tale and digress as said counterargument is dissected and I await revealing other points or clarify often by metaphor.

In a way, what else matters in today's society? — schopenhauer1

Well to be frank, not wanting to end one's life or rather to be part of a society people enjoy. Quarrelsome people have the one valid argument that perhaps those who dislike them are sensitive and too much sensitivity can be a detriment to one's life and those of others around them. Non-quarrelsome people have one of many arguments the most simple of which being "people don't like pricks".

Taken to the extreme. Society itself collapses without Larrys. Using a little Kantian CI.. A society without highly efficient outputers is one that won't be anymore. — schopenhauer1

In my opinion, and perhaps historical fact, if a society has ever reached that point it's only a matter of time and a controlled demolition versus some distant possibility to be wary of. Again, Larry's only value is the fact he has value simply because he is not a person who "cannot do anything". This makes his attitude as relevant as whether or not his hair is straight or curly.

is a meaner world with better technology be better than a kinder world with much less technology/efficiency/output.. and perhaps one that would be on the verge of not existing anymore due to inefficiency and ineptness? — schopenhauer1

Better to who? Some people want a life on Mayberry Street with Mister Rodgers as Supreme Overlord. Others want "excitement" at the expense and in the form of varying tugs on society's social fabric. Depending who you ask, Sure. While it's around. Again, opinion. Possibly...

Well, sure. As you've mentioned I am a consequentalist, no I see it as a "realist" for the reasons explained in previous posts in this thread. Every action has consequences. But, in the hypothetical unrealistic closed example of "within the workplace" assuming it has no effect or bearing on society or that I have no concern for that society if not just for the argument, Larry would be preferred yes. — Outlander

I guess, making this a little more realistic.. Is being a good "company man" (meeting/agreeing with the boss/manager/owner's goals and exceeding them) the dominant value in today's society?

The only real argument against it is to simply double-down and say that being too much of a company man stifles creativity.. because the next boss/manager/owner/entrepeneur needs to be just sufficiently enough creative so that other people can become company men for their company. So even the rebuttal just wants someone to be "not company man" just enough so that they can own the organization to make other company men.

The alternative to company-compliance/output/entrepreneurship is a rundown, poverty-stricken society (again, no one gives a shit about a Bob society with no useful goods and services). If being smug/mean/unfriendly-to-those-you-deem-as-below-you is what is required to be a good worker/owner.. all the better because.. More output!!

It's clear that the virtuous and good Larry is a much better person than lay-about, tree-hugging Bob. Anyone can see that!

I guess, making this a little more realistic.. Is being a good "company man" (meeting/agreeing with the boss/manager/owner's goals and exceeding them) the dominant value in today's society? — schopenhauer1

I'm no expert on this but I don't think we can move easily from what makes a good company man to what society values. There is some overlap, but I would not make them identical. For one thing what a 'good company man' looks like will vary and may not even make sense in some workplace settings.

I manage a medium sized team of around 40 people. How I work with them and assess their worth or capacity is dependent on a range of factors which are in constant transformation - e.g., external environment, stakeholder pressure, changing needs, outcomes, personalities, resources, surplus funds, developmental needs, ages, gender mix, workplace culture, complaints, mistakes, health, education. A worker who is not productive but a really nice person is moved on fairly quickly. Someone who is not nice but gets results will be tolerated for longer. Most companies don't exist to baby sit people, they have jobs to do, goals to meet, contracts to deliver on.

Managers generally need to delver on organizational/company KPI's identified in a strategic plan. The extent to which this overarching goal influences culture will depend on many variables, particularly the extent to which profit unpins the work.

Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa? — schopenhauer1

Category mistake. Those 'qualities' are not comparable.

Is the value of "being useful at the workplace" more important than having a good character? — schopenhauer1

No. They are not comparable.

Is a length of string more useful than a paperclip?

It seems to be false dilemma season.

you didn't follow the assignment. — schopenhauer1

Because it is poorly designed to test intuitions about different kinds of virtue or failing. It is similar to this.
Cars can be safe. Cars can be fast. Which do you want - a safe car or a fast car? "Well, I'll have a safe car" - oh, ho, so you don't care about going at walking pace all the time? "Then I'll have a fast car" - what, and kill children just to get somewhere on time? You must pick one. But of course it is not the case that we must pick one kind of virtue. We only have to pick one car, which will have various good and bad points.

Bob is clearly the more productive one, having cultivated a strong and virtuous character, which ultimately is the only thing that can lead to happiness, and thus the only thing worth pursuing in this life.

It seems to be false dilemma season. — Banno

No explanation as to why though. Because Banno said it isn’t enough.

A worker who is not productive but a really nice person is moved on fairly quickly. Someone who is not nice but gets results will be tolerated for longer. Most companies don't exist to baby sit people, they have jobs to do, goals to meet, contracts to deliver on. — Tom Storm

You hit on so much that can be mined for ethics and values, meaning, and especially pessimism of social structures. I’ll need to get back to you on this! Good stuff

No. They are not comparable. — 180 Proof

How? One is useful in a tangible output way and the other is simply a nice guy but produces no output. That is comparable enough. Just saying, “it’s not comparable” is a cop out. I’d say you’re a nice guy though but that’s not true either. Neither a Larry nor a Bob :razz:.

We only have to pick one car, which will have various good and bad points. — Cuthbert

Does the world need more output or nice people. To make it more pointed, why does the world need Bobs when you have Larrys? Any answer favoring Bob seems to be superfluous sentimentalism. The modern answer seems to be MORE OUTPUT! Who gives a shit about character if they PRODUCE! Larry isn’t doing egregiously harmful things. He’s just a low level asshole who can get away with it and is rewarded too.

@Cuthbert @Tom Storm @Outlander

But it's also the immediate switch in values too.. As a consumer I want my fence/car/computer/X built correctly and efficiently. As a producer, I might want my dignity, good working environment, etc.

People are used and use others to get shit done. There is an element of this. There is no other way, so throw it on the heap of pessimism. As I've defined philosophical pessimism, is the intractable structural negatives of living as a human. There is no getting away from usefulness as supreme in a modern society. Usefulness makes people reduced to their use and it makes people eventually have to use others. You can bring in Kant and treat the waiter as an ends and not just a means.. but at the end of the day, the waiter better bring you your food, and none of Kant's glossing over with a nice chat with the waiter overcomes this point of how we must structurally use and be used by others.

Bob is clearly the more productive one, having cultivated a strong and virtuous character, which ultimately is the only thing that can lead to happiness, and thus the only thing worth pursuing in this life. — Tzeentch

Bold move picking Bob. But is he really what modern day society values? He’s actually a drag on production. How can your fence be built, your car be made, your X be produced or serviced with Bob? If he killed himself would it be a tragedy that he died, or was it more that it was a tragedy he contributed no usefulness to the goods and services that we want and need? That he contributed no value to his company or organizations or customers.

I don't trust that Bob. No one can be that nice. The weasel's up to something. When no one else is around, he probably leaves his toenail clippings on the rug, and cheats at solitaire.

Besides, someone's gotta stand up for the Larrys of the world. Poor schmoes. It's not his fault - he can't help it his parents were Republicans.

Not if their character is their work I guess.
If your job is to think and consult for example - and people implement things based on your arguments one can say well they're not really doing a job they're just thinking things and arguing their points. Like any philosopher does. The only different between a couch philosopher and a professional one is that a professional philosopher whether they specialise in a subset for example ethics - is tied to/consults an establishment or teaches.

The ethics Committee of a scientific institution considers what is presented to them and determines how to proceed without causing harm. Their job is not manual in that sense it's mental.

Those who cannot think for themselves or find it hard to generally tend towards being active in the Labour force. In manual tasks. On the other side of a society we have judges and law makers which are responsible to ensure those that cannot think/don't think for themselves don't get exploited or get themselves into trouble.

Everyones character (set of personality traits) usually correspond with certain jobs. Hence the aptitude tests of career guidance councellors.
The only people who's character is not useful for work are those that are uncooperative/hostile, extremely lazy, depressed, or battling "delusions" that prevent them from functioning in society meaningfully/safely or those that simply disagree with participating in a society for whatever values they hold.

The only people who's character is not useful for work are those that are uncooperative/hostile, extremely lazy, depressed, or battling "delusions" that prevent them from functioning in society meaningfully/safely or those that simply disagree with participating in a society for whatever values they hold. — Benj96

Fuck em right? They mine as well be dead because they can’t contribute no? Seems to be about the tenor of all this.

Fuck em right? They mine as well be dead because they can’t contribute no? — schopenhauer1

Of course not. How would that be ethical? We are implored to help them self actualize to the best of their ability. By encouraging them and supporting them to help in society and be rewarded for being co-operative - with a better salary, better quality of life etc if thats something that appeals to them.

If it doesn't then we should still provide universal basic protections : food, housing, the basic necessities to get by and leave them be. I don't think it's fair to use those at the bottom rung as a scapegoat for all of our problems.

If we don't help them we lose our civility. Especially because you cannot choose to whom and where in society you're born. People are born in poverty and struggle to get out of it because of the discrimination of people who think they are dead weight and must always be dead weight. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with someone because of the environment they're brought up in and the things they have to do to survive.

People who are poor and barely holding on steal. People who are wealthy steal. Except the first instance is more justifiable given the hostile conditions they face. There's no reason a wealthy person should ever steal.

Bold move picking Bob. But is he really what modern day society values? — schopenhauer1

I don't think modern society's values are all that relevant.

Besides, modern society is made up of individuals making choices in pursuit of their own happiness, and Bob is simply doing the same, but succeeding while Larry is failing.

Easy. Character is more important in society.

We are implored to help them self actualize to the best of their ability — Benj96

Do you think we have a duty to create more beings that need to fulfill some role like working in society? Mind you, not figure out what to do with those who are born and can’t work but add a new person.

Larry is failing. — Tzeentch

Larry is happy in his abilities. He goes home feeling content, even if it is with smug relish in how much of an asset he is to his company. He’s just an asshole we’ll say. He may even view himself as rightfully “efficient” to others who he feels are just not as good as him and they need to be shown that. Maybe it’s part of his personality. We can say he has narcissistic tendencies.

Actually he’s quite friendly with management and they tacitly condone his behavior because they like that he makes them money.