Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
Let's say we have two people.. Larry and Bob.
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.
Bob on the other hand is a really nice person. He is caring. Listens to others. Tries to console them. Is not braggadocios or smug, helps people when he can, never aggressive, tries never to control things more than he has to, and is all around just "nice guy". However, Bob can't do shit for shit. He can't produce anything worthwhile at work. He is pretty piss poor at his job.. He's just not a great "doer" as a "worker" and so isn't really useful to any industry or sector of society.
I know the tendency is to say the world is big enough for both these types in it, and that we need both these types.. But I'm just not going to let you get away with that. Too easy. You have to pick one. Which is more important, to have a good character or to be useful? You can define it in terms of ethics, utility, whatever you want. I feel that the way people answer is more revealing about them than it is about anything else, but I would like to see any creative responses and explanations.
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.
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.
Bob on the other hand is a really nice person. He is caring. Listens to others. Tries to console them. Is not braggadocios or smug, helps people when he can, never aggressive, tries never to control things more than he has to, and is all around just "nice guy". However, Bob can't do shit for shit. He can't produce anything worthwhile at work. He is pretty piss poor at his job.. He's just not a great "doer" as a "worker" and so isn't really useful to any industry or sector of society.
I know the tendency is to say the world is big enough for both these types in it, and that we need both these types.. But I'm just not going to let you get away with that. Too easy. You have to pick one. Which is more important, to have a good character or to be useful? You can define it in terms of ethics, utility, whatever you want. I feel that the way people answer is more revealing about them than it is about anything else, but I would like to see any creative responses and explanations.
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.
Comments (72)
Both are already here with us in the world and we are all to some extent ineffectual and productive, pleasant and nasty. Perhaps I work hard enough already and should put more effort into being pleasant as well. It's a big ask, but I might have a go at both rather than just picking one. You're setting the bar too low.
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.
Quoting schopenhauer1
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.
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.
"Pick one" who "is more important" how,? in what way? for what reason?
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.
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?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/751604
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.
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.
All philosophy aside, Larry is a few silver pieces away from being a full-blown Judas hence will never be little more than a liability and needs to be not around immediately. 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.
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.
Why? If I say "important as sentient life forms", then both are equally important specimens. You categorically rule out "both" as an option, however, which implies a restriction on what "important" can mean in your OP. So state clearly what is meant by "important" as I put it to yo in my initial post because, schop1, you can't have it both ways.
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.
Quoting 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:
Quoting schopenhauer1
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?
Why can't I have whatever I want when I want it? Same.
Quoting 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).
Quoting 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..
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.
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.
Bob cannot do anything. He needs to be trained on how to be a better employee. I do not buy the idea that Bob cannot do anything. Everyone I've ever been around is capable of doing something well enough.
If given a choice, I choose neither as they are. I train them to be what I want. If it's all about profit, and not about a pleasant work environment, and it's possible to completely isolate the employee to prevent the unwelcome spread of hostility, aggression, and inferiority complex... I choose Larry, but I look for a replacement in the meantime.
Thank you for thoughtful response, but same reply as Tom...
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well you gave no choice, really. You stipulated one very efficient worker and one useless worker. In the background is the risk of failing as a company if production is low.
So...
Subjective opinion or absolute if you were some sort of psychic.with the desired measurable item (profit made in USD, influence in number of Markets Reached, etc).
Potential including risks vs. concrete value. I'd take a handgun over a machine gun that's liable to blow up or otherwise cause harm to me or whatever my goals are. Value that can become useless or a detriment vs. a lower consistent value, basically. Unexplored potential?
@creativesoul made a good point. If Bob literally "cannot do anything" he's basically handicapped. This becomes 'is a handicapped person (or someone with no skills in the particular industry) more valuable than someone who is not handicapped or has skills a particular industry.' The question of attitude comes second to such a stark request and becomes irrelevant with that considered. I think so at least.
If we're in apocalypse, which would you choose to be with -- Larry or Bob? I think the answer is obvious.
That's because you think you can control Larry or expect anything he can throw at you. I'm sure Larry would choose you too.
What's your point?
That's up to the reader, friend.
Well okay, then you have my answer:
Quoting 180 Proof
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.
:up:
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.
That's a different question, independent of not related to the one raised by the OP. Why don't ask plainly and clearly what you're trying to get at?
Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
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.
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?
I will not pick any of them.
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)?
lol.
:smile:
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.
Quoting 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".
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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...
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!!
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.
Category mistake. Those 'qualities' are not comparable.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No. They are not comparable.
It seems to be false dilemma season.
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.
No explanation as to why though. Because Banno said it isnt enough.
You hit on so much that can be mined for ethics and values, meaning, and especially pessimism of social structures. Ill need to get back to you on this! Good stuff
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, its not comparable is a cop out. Id say youre a nice guy though but thats not true either. Neither a Larry nor a Bob :razz:.
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 isnt doing egregiously harmful things. Hes just a low level asshole who can get away with it and is rewarded too.
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.
Bold move picking Bob. But is he really what modern day society values? Hes 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.
Fuck em right? They mine as well be dead because they cant contribute no? Seems to be about the tenor of all this.
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.
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.
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 cant work but add a new person.
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. Hes just an asshole well 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 its part of his personality. We can say he has narcissistic tendencies.
Actually hes quite friendly with management and they tacitly condone his behavior because they like that he makes them money.
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.
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.
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?
Apples and onions. :roll:
Its 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 hes nice or not.
I like the perspective. Tying this in to modern society. Is there really room for Bobs? Aren't Larrys more prized?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Only where there is surplus water, food, shelter, oxygen, 'ugly Bettys' and medical supplies.
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?
How do you / I know I am not a "Larry"?
Gotta play the hand I've been dealt as well as I can, so the question is moot.
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.
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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..
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.