The cynical economist’s position would be that if utilitarianism leads to good results, and being antisocial leads to utilitarianism, then that is a positive side to being antisocial. For example, English social theories, which have lead to the most progressive societies, is intuitively utilitarian. Only valid to a certain extent, of course, but you might say that if you want to live in a progressive society, then you should be slightly antisocial.
I would also like to know whether this definition of “antisocial” covers the Buddha as well. Moreover, might not having non-mainstream tastes or opinions also be correlated with “antisocial” behavior?
The cynical economist’s position would be that if utilitarianism leads to good results, and being antisocial leads to utilitarianism, then that is a positive side to being antisocial. For example, English social theories, which have lead to the most progressive societies, is intuitively utilitarian. Only valid to a certain extent, of course, but you might say that if you want to live in a progressive society, then you should be slightly antisocial.
I would also like to know whether this definition of “antisocial” covers the Buddha as well. Moreover, might not having non-mainstream tastes or opinions also be correlated with “antisocial” behavior?