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.

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?

Yep, you make sense here.

There is no philosophical justification for merging my thread with this one. The motivation is clearly just a brute dislike of philosophical discussion of antinatalism or any argument that might have antinatalist implications. — Bartricks

Seems to be the case. Not a balanced moderation. They think simply even "tolerating" AN threads is too much. One would think openness to differing views would be of most importance in a philosophy forum.

Again, I whole-heartedly encourage you to continue on in this vein. — Banno

And I am doing so, as I have your whole-hearted support :wink:.

Nice work, the mod who merg'd all the bumf. — Banno

Axe to grind much? Whispering in his ear like wormtongue over here? Maybe not, being magnanimous to your interlocutor isn't your thing. Rather, being what? supercilious you call it? is your way.

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. — Benj96

I am not saying that it's either or with parents or helping those who already exist. Rather, in a world that is brutal to the Bobs.. that may be structured to be so brutal because Larrys are valued.. Perhaps it is not a world start for others because of this structural negative element. As you say, people fall through the cracks. But why is it good to start the treadmill for yet another person? Because one likes playing the role of parent seems not comparable for starting a game that someone else has to play and may be quite unpleasant for them. Not everyone kills themselves, but just because not everyone kills themselves, doesn't mean structural negatives aren't a thing. And suicide does exist for some. And surely, you don't even need suicide to know life itself will just deal deadly blows, and if not deadly blows, quite fiercely negative ones.

There is always an overcoming to this game.. Overcoming ones shortcomings, other people's games to dodge, and life's survival itself. Yet, none of this has to be started for anyone.

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?

Thank you for sticking up for my threads, T Clark! I appreciate your defense and kind words regarding my posts. I don't think that was a great way to moderate my threads either. Hopefully @Jamal and @Baden will reconsider or reorganize them. Pessimism, even if disliked by many, has a place for discussion and should have a seat at the table as much as threads on consciousness and science.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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:.

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

It seems to be false dilemma season. — Banno

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

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!!

:smile:

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)?

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?

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.

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

Well okay, then you have my answer:
If I say "important as sentient life forms", then both are equally important specimens.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

Is sentience the most important value for you? That isn't even a value. Do you value emotional awareness? Loving-kindness? Technological efficiency? Greater tangible goods? etc. Sentience seems to be not a value but simply a state of affairs.

Ok, so I think my OP was sufficiently unclear, and that is my fault. I may go back and change it. So this is not about "which worker would you pick if you had to pick between the two and you were a manager at company X". Rather, this is about, in general, do you value the usefulness of Larry or Bob's good character? I don't want to say something like, "As it relates to the greater society.. or for being a friend" or something more specific because that would sway the reasoning. Rather, it is about what is more valuable in an axiological/ethical sense in general. So for example.. consequentialists that only care about outputs, might pick Larry. Virtue theorists might choose Bob. 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.

Thank you for thoughtful response, but same reply as Tom...

Granted. But an answer to a slightly different question. Most people would choose Larry if it was a matter of retaining worker. No one really cares about character if the output is outputting and money is coming in.. Excepting externalities (Larry's assholeness gets the best of himself).. Larry is the sure choice if the choice was who to keep as employee if you had to choose between the two. However, the question is about importance in general. And though abstract/vague/broad.. I'd like to see how you/people would answer that question. What is more "valuable" in a more general sense. — schopenhauer1

I guess then I would probably retain Larry on the basis that he is meeting the organization's priorities and its strategic plan, which is what a manager is supposed to serve. — Tom Storm

Granted. But an answer to a slightly different question. Most people would choose Larry if it was a matter of retaining worker. No one really cares about character if the output is outputting and money is coming in.. Excepting externalities (Larry's assholeness gets the best of himself).. Larry is the sure choice if the choice was who to keep as employee if you had to choose between the two. However, the question is about importance in general. And though abstract/vague/broad.. I'd like to see how you/people would answer that question. What is more "valuable" in a more general sense.

Why? — 180 Proof

Why can't I have whatever I want when I want it? Same.

If I say "important as sentient life forms", then both are equally important specimens. — 180 Proof

The question was about importance. So it's weighing importance here, and the nature of what is being weighed was also laid out (and is in the OP's title).

however, which implies a restriction on what "important" can mean in your OP. — 180 Proof

No, I really am not restricting what is deemed as important. That is up to you. Create a story around it if you like.. Larry is creating jobs and useful things so is better. Nice doesn't cut it.. and if Bob offed himself today, besides feelings being hurt by a few people, no output is affected. Larry is creating a tremendous amount of X important things for Y industry..

The only 'great value' Larry creates that can't be outsourced for a few dollars or replaced with a machine using the methodologies that never belonged to Larry nor have anything to do with him intrinsically but were simply adopted by him can be sufficiently replicated with a poster of a clown. — Outlander

Ha, I like the picture you paint. However, indeed Larry's output/abilities/capacities cannot be replaced in any foreseeable future, and in fact create jobs for the industry and creates a tremendous amount of outputs.. What then?

work with an arsehole, which in itself can take down an entire workplace — Tom Storm

Let's say that even though he's an arsehole, everyone else is indifferent to it because they have become used to it. Everyone is humming along nicely and just shrug their shoulders at Larry's propensities. He's good at what he does, so maybe they simply take that as a good enough reason to tolerate it. They even are quite amused by his asshole antics because sometimes it appeals to their base humor as well.

I would probably keep Bob and put him on a performance improvement plan with a timeline of 8 weeks. If he did not improve, I would remove him and advertise the role.

If this were a real situation, it would heavily depend on what country, industry, culture you are referring to here as these factors can greatly influence how HR issue play out. — Tom Storm

Bob is bad at every job he did/does/ever will do. He's a great friend though, good at lifting people's spirits, and a bunch of intangibles that can't be monetized or even be used for workplace productivity. He's kind, agreeable, and some other innocuous, amenable, "nice" traits.

To add from previous post:

In fact, if Bob were taken out of the labor pool, every industry he ever touched would rebound doubly to 200% output. — schopenhauer1

As Bob is such a nice guy he can presumably see that he's getting on his colleagues' wick by failing at work and he will out of kindness seek another job that requires being nice to people whilst producing nothing at all. The modern Western economy is full of such opportunities for a charming useless layabout like Bob. Larry, on the other hand, should slow down and try to be less productive or he may excite the envy of the many Bobs around him. — Cuthbert

Ok, so I was a bit hasty with your last response. I do appreciate you answered thoughtfully here. However, Bob, being inept at everything related to usefulness to output (work/laboring). Let's say that every job he ever takes, he will actually weaken the output it creates. Is it better if Bob were not around at all? In fact, if Bob were taken out of the labor pool, every industry he ever touched would rebound doubly to 200% output.

@180 Proof here's more meat for you perhaps.

how,? in what way? for what reason? — 180 Proof

More important for X. You decide. Everything is open EXCEPT saying BOTH are important for X reason/ends. You can even pick whatever reason or ends you like. You just can't say BOTH. It's open axiology.. If I say "society" that already sways it.. If I say "community" that already sways it, etc.

You posed the "dilemma" but framed it ambiguously enough not to be taken seriously. Try again, make it clear and compelling. — 180 Proof

I think it's compelling enough. You have a nice guy versus a useful guy and more elaboration on how. I also mentioned how the useful guy is really useful for his industry and the nice guy is inept at any job he will ever do. What else would you like to see?

I whole-heartedly encourage you to continue on in this vein. — Banno

Ok.

Pick one" who "is more important" how,? in what way? for what reason? — 180 Proof

Up to you, but you have to pick one. It's not only picking the person, but what it represents, right? So character, usefulness is the basic dichotomy, but you can elaborate all you want. Character can be ethically better. But then again, maybe the utility of usefulness is more important. An elevated Trolley Dilemma.

That you've been unable to advance your position without vindictive reinforces my point. — Banno

Isn't that the name of your game? I mean you can retreat into what I predicted you would.. "That you are posing as ironic" all you want. Smug is smug. You can say Socrates was smug then.. but wooohee.. then you are comparing yourself to Socrates.. and maybe he was indeed a smuggy.

On the contrary, comparing one kind of virtue and failing with another is extremely difficult and subtle, especially when both kinds are present to some degree in all of us. — Cuthbert

How is that "to the contrary"? That is precisely what I said was easier to do.. (to pick both of them). Though I appreciate your response, you didn't follow the assignment. Let us also say Larry is just not going to be good at any job that he enters into for various reasons.. even ones you might think he should be good at.

There's that, then. Thanks for the chat. — Banno

No problem. Love telling smugs why the be smugs.

Back to passive aggressive shite. Twerp. — Banno

HILARIOUS :rofl:. You are one of the smuggiest passive aggressiviest posters on here. You know it too. You cannot be that un-selfaware.. Or you are being super ironic. Either way, pot calling kettle black.

And we can work to remove them. That's unless one is a pessimist. — Banno

But that is precisely what a Pessimist does.. He sees the intractable, pervasive, necessary harms that are structural. Even contingent harms that are consistently pervasive can look quite necessary as to structural. But though you're being tongue-in-cheek with your use of pessimism here, how your using it here is precisely what a philosophical pessimist is not. A philosophical pessimist does not just think things can't get better, but rather that the fact that there are structural negatives in the first place is something to explore, and to explore what those are and reveal them. The "optimist" in this regard is not just someone who "sees the glass full" but is someone who is overlooking what is structurally the case. Perhaps just to make their case about this and that project (like discussing analytic philosophy and logic on a philosophy forum) being important.