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. — schopenhauer1

Well I wouldnt consider it so much a duty but a natural instinct and a natural imperative. People reproduce not because of what their future children may or may not contribute to society but because they want to be parents. They was to raise and teach their childrenbtheir values and see if they can be good parents and raise a good child. For some parents their sole purpose is their children. It is their "job" and they stay at home to fulfill that role. Which is entirely their choice.

Besides the act of procreating is fun is it not? Otherwise it's unlikely that couples would become pregnant by accident.

I think it's a false dilemma that we ought to only fix the situation for those that exist already or be parents to new beings as they have the potential to help aid the problems in society rather than contribute to them. It is up to parents how to raise them with that in mind. Some parents raise outstanding citizens whilst others not so much. For whatever reasons they may be.

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. — schopenhauer1

I would classify being a "narcisisstic asshole" as failing - failing, perhaps not at his job, but at life.

Larry is the real tragedy here, since his lack of virtue (a state of affairs that he is likely unaware of and also cannot be fully attributed to him) denies him the experience of true happiness and beauty. Whatever shallow contentedness he may find is but dressing on the wounds. He experiences limbo at best, and hell at worst.

Which is more important, to have a good character or to be useful? — schopenhauer1

It depends on prior value judgements and the context in which the question is asked. It is meaningless to ask what is more important without first clarifying these points.

You might as well ask whether a fleece coat or sunscreen is more important. It depends, what's the weather like?

One is useful in a tangible output way and the other is simply a nice guy but produces no output. — schopenhauer1

Apples and onions. :roll:

You might as well ask whether a fleece coat or sunscreen is more important. It depends, what's the weather like? — _db

It’s more about what you find valuable, ethically or otherwise.

Larry the asshole can be perfectly moral to you and you may value his productiveness over Bobs inept habits, whether he’s nice or not.

I would classify being a "narcisisstic asshole" as failing - failing, perhaps not at his job, but at life.

Larry is the real tragedy here, since his lack of virtue (a state of affairs that he is likely unaware of and also cannot be fully attributed to him) denies him the experience of true happiness and beauty. Whatever shallow contentedness he may find is but dressing on the wounds. He experiences limbo at best, and hell at worst. — Tzeentch

I like the perspective. Tying this in to modern society. Is there really room for Bobs? Aren't Larrys more prized?

Boredom wins. :roll:

Is there really room for Bobs? — schopenhauer1

Only where there is surplus water, food, shelter, oxygen, 'ugly Bettys' and medical supplies.

Aren't Larrys more prized?

Only when there is an acute scarcity of labor, security and medical supplies.

What if you had to give up any positive character trait to be like Larry? Would that be a world worth living in? The catch-22 is all the Larrys wouldn't know they are assholes though, so of course they would think living like Larry is worth it. Does more than one Larry cancel each other out? Would they admire the other assholes for the asshole-ness?

What if you had to give up any positive character trait to be like Larry? — schopenhauer1

How do you / I know I am not a "Larry"?

Would that be a world worth living in?

Gotta play the hand I've been dealt as well as I can, so the question is moot.

Tying this in to modern society. Is there really room for Bobs? — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure what you mean. Your dilemma presupposes Bobs are part of modern society, so seemingly there is room.

If you're asking if Bob can contribute somehow, I would say of course. Bob is the one who gets it, and instead of working in some place where his success is measured by productivity, he might find some way to share his wisdom so that others might not fall into the trap of becoming a Larry.

Aren't Larrys more prized? — schopenhauer1

In terms of the opinions of other Larrys? Well, who cares about those?

In terms of material wealth? Yes, but at the expense of spiritual wealth, which is a terrible trade.

Larry is a big piece of shit in how he treats people. He is mean, taunting, smug, unhelpful to others, makes fun of people ruthlessly, shows off, overly competitive about everything to the point of hubris, controlling, aggressive, backstabbing, and a whole lot of other negative character traits.

HOWEVER, Larry is also REALLY good at his job. He is the most productive person on his team, and creates great value for the company, even being a direct reason for its growth in terms of output. Jobs are created from Larry's output actually, and the products are quite useful to certain sectors of society in terms of satisfying the needs of that industry. — schopenhauer1

The issues I am about to raise may seem like a tangent, and perhaps they are, but I cannot but raise them.
1) it does depend on the job. If it's a cigarrette manufacturer, his effectiveness wins few points for me.
2) how do we track the effects of him being a piece of shit? as someone who has worked with toxic people, I think they shorten lives, cause incredible suffering and affect the productivity of others. How do we track the value in all that? How do we put a number on that? (I do feel an antinatalist would at least have some sympathy for this issue, if not necessarily agreement)
3) the word 'nice'. If someone is utterly incompetent and we cannot find a role for them in society - perhaps one where niceness is central part of their role, I would have to call into question whether they are really nice. If they are cognitively handicapped - extremely low IQ, say - well, then they are the equivalent of someone who could be on disability and perhaps should be. If they are not disabled, then I question their niceness. They may present themselves politely, perform kind acts, listen well. But if they aren't getting the dishes off the tables, they are likely a passive-aggressive busboy.

I know. This may all seem like trying to get out of answering the question. But I did want to raise a few issues that are important to and apologies if they are not ones for you: 1) often if the effects of something are not easy to track, they are left out as effects. 2) the conflation of niceness with goodness. 3) that all business is treated as in and of itself good. 3 be 'fixed' for me, but making the company in question one that most people would think it was great if it was successful. But I think the other two remain in any scenario. And if they remain in any scenario, I don't think my reactions can be dismissed as evasive.

To answer despite my objections: I would say I tend to think that the assholes of the world are a greater problem than the (truly) kind (switching to a word I think is slightly less problematic) people are. On the other hand, truly kind people need to confront these assholes and help make it impossible for them to continue being assholes.

As one bit of background: I had an extremely competent boss, well liked by the CEO, who was somewhere in the sociopath/narcissist spectrum. I know people left the company because of her, some very competent. But generally they did not, as far as I know, say that part of all of their motivation was her monstrousness. Because it seemed like tacit approval from above, I would guess in part. I know that it added stress to my days until I could leave and this passed on to the way I interacted with clients. Every interaction had that possibility of giving fuel to the monster. Of course, bosses are a particular case, with added effects a coworker need not have. But i do think, because of this experience and others, that there are chains of effectives sliding away from the sides of an asshole. The cost is hard to track and may be displaced on family members and even organizations not within that workplace.

1) it does depend on the job. If it's a cigarrette manufacturer, his effectiveness wins few points for me. — Bylaw

Let's say it's computer hardware software design for an electronics company that provides various technologies for hospitals, government, and the a variety of agencies. But I get what you are saying. Being productive for a net negative output would obviously change things if one was a consequentialist only about it.

how do we track the effects of him being a piece of shit? as someone who has worked with toxic people, I think they shorten lives, cause incredible suffering and affect the productivity of others. How do we track the value in all that? How do we put a number on that? (I do feel an antinatalist would at least have some sympathy for this issue, if not necessarily agreement) — Bylaw

I do sympathize and agree that Larry is not a moral agent nor more important for society. Most of my support for Larry is in pursuit of furthering the discussion for hypothetical purposes. It's clear where this is leading, and its not towards a positive conclusion about the state of things. Rather, it is a conundrum. Productivity perhaps is cherished above all else. It gives a false assessment of what is good because we have learned to associate productive = good. But eerily at the same time, perhaps survival NEEDS little else. As @180 Proof alluded to, Bob is simply a luxury to have. Larry is necessary for goods and services to be produced. There is no time for niceness, mental disorder, disabilities, etc. in a dire situation. There is only time for Larrys.. Larrys are needed to make the modern world go round because the survival of the modern world comes down to production of goods and services and their efficient distribution. But again back to the conundrum of what does that say about our world and what it stands for? It can't be any other way, but look at what that way is..

They may present themselves politely, perform kind acts, listen well. But if they aren't getting the dishes off the tables, they are likely a passive-aggressive busboy. — Bylaw

But isn't this all part of the same problem? The world is designed a certain way. Perhaps the busboy can't see any other way to survive.. No work would be best for the busboy. Even you are being a little Larryish here because at the end of the day, if the busboy is a good person but doesn't do a good job (let's say he just sucks, maybe it is mental illness but not to the point where he is unaware of it), he has no where to go except to be ground to dust and forgotten in the waste bin. The value of production is necessary. Who cares about other values? Larry can be mean, nasty, and brutish, but he produces and that is all that matters.

Look at the way this forum is run. If you produce an X amount of posts that are considered conventional to the mods, they don't care about civility. However, if you produce things they don't agree with, you are much less tolerated, especially if your tone turns mean as well. Meanness is the reward of (right) productive value.

On the other hand, truly kind people need to confront these assholes and help make it impossible for them to continue being assholes. — Bylaw

Ironically, the nice people "confronting" assholes are often wrongly assumed to be the asshole, especially if they don't produce in a way the company deems as most productive.

The cost is hard to track and may be displaced on family members and even organizations not within that workplace. — Bylaw

Indeed. However, anyone who doesn't conform with liking the asshole will eventually just get pushed out. Assholes are desired as long as they produce what the company desires.