Monument to Greed

[grandpa]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Not even the definition you provided said that. Your definition said it was a selfish desire for wealth and possessions. We all have a selfish desire for wealth and possessions, but just because we aren't as successful at acquiring them does that make us any less greedy? If you define greed simply as having a lot of money and possessions then your argument loses much of its meaning, if not all of it.

having or showing a selfish desire for wealth and possessions

How could it be more spelled out than that? Do millionaires and billionaires not have or show a selfish desire for wealth and possessions more than, say, people who are not very rich?

Grandpa h.

[Merge]

Quote by: G. Adams If your not prepared to back up your points, there's nothing for me to argue with you, making your effort in typing on a debate website rather redundant.

I completely agree with you. Fortunately I never said I wasn't prepared to argue. You posted a question and I answered it by providing a possibility. I don't need to provide arguments or evidence to prove that something is possible. At this point you would need to provide evidence to show why what I wrote isn't a possibility. I assume you had a reason for writing this comment, so what did you not understand about my post? I'll be more than happy to clear it up.

Quote by: G. Adams How is the example you describe similar to the actions of the man in question? He has not, to the best of my knowledge, stolen anything. The people who work for him have not been press ganged into work, therefore their labour has not been stolen from them. A trade has occurred, money for labour, not a theft.

When I wrote ”on this view” it was to let you know that I was discussing your view on the matter, not the man in question. You said that if someone gained money through exploitation and later made reparations to the exploited, then that person would have a right to whatever money was left over after reparations.

Quote by: G. Adams in answer to your actual scenario, it would of course be wrong. Taking private property without explicit consent (a lack of objection is not the same as voluntary agreement) is wrong even if you put it to a positive use. Just like a government taking money from private citizens without their consent, veen if it is for positive ends like feeding the poor, is wrong. I'm glad you brought up that example, as it so simply explains my position.

I’m not sure how my scenario “simply explains” your position. Is someone looking to take his money and pay him back later?

The scenario was meant to illustrate the fact that even if someone makes up for past wrongs, that person still may not have a right to money gained through those wrongs.

[Merge]

Quote by: G. Adams I ask you why is it fair for people who, through no fault or effort of their own, have been born into more opportunity to be persecuted by government more than anyone else? I would argue that a fair society should treat everyone as equals, whether or not they are poor or rich, opportunity rich or opportunity poor. Yet you are arguing for a society where because you are rich, or talented, or perhaps just particularly hard working and thrifty, to be treated worse by government. That because you are these things, you are allowed to be stripped of your hard work more than anyone else.

I don't think it is fair. I am agreeing with you.

Now, why do you disagree with what I have argued "fairness" requires? How is it fair that this billionaire should have all this wealth gained through hard work and opportunity while some child dies of hunger? In considering fairness, are you excluding any inequality not brought about by humans?

Quote by: G. Adams it is you and your ilk that are fighting for an unjust, unfair society.

My ilk? What, philosophers?

I'm not fighting for anything. I'm debating your views and points. Just because I find inconsistencies in your views does not mean that I completely disagree with them. Who I am does not invalidate my points. Please focus on the discussion and not on me.

[Merge]

Quote by: grandpa having or showing a selfish desire for wealth and possessions How could it be more spelled out than that? Do millionaires and billionaires not have or show a selfish desire for wealth and possessions more than, say, people who are not very rich? Grandpa h.

Maybe his point is that we aren't any less greedy than the billionaire just because his greed shows more. Put in his situation, we may have the same selfish desires as he does.

On the other hand, the claim that this billionaire is greedy is no less true if a greedy person makes it.

[LadiesMan217]

having or showing a selfish desire for wealth and possessions How could it be more spelled out than that? Do millionaires and billionaires not have or show a selfish desire for wealth and possessions more than, say, people who are not very rich? Grandpa h.

If you really can't see how your logic is flawed than I see no hope for furthering the discussion and we will just be going around in circles. Your definition for greed, which seems to be if you have wealth then you are greedier than someone who does not, is not only wrong it is unsupported and childish. I am not saying this man is not greedy, I am saying that he is not greedier than you or me. Greed is a desire, not a sum of a man's wealth. We all inherently have this desire and there are countless numbers of people spending there lives trying to amass a fortune like this man's, but just because they don't succeed in there endeavors doesn't mean they still aren't less greedy. We all work for a living so we can make money to live comfortably, isn't that greedy? Now you can either concede or you can throw that dictionary definition back in my face that clearly says greed is a desire for wealth and try to tell me that it actually means greed is possessing wealth and by then I will be fully convinced that you are brainwashed.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Merge Maybe his point is that we aren't any less greedy than the billionaire just because his greed shows more. Put in his situation, we may have the same selfish desires as he does.

But "greed" is typically a matter of degree. Anyone could be called greedy if they want anything, but obviously people who waant more and more and more will be greedier than someone who is content and humble. If we don't think so, it renders the word "greed" pretty much meaningless. The argument he's making also lets rich people off the hook, making it seem like "they're just like the rest of us." They are not, at least if we're not deluded. We may have "selfish desires as he does," but these desires should not be met. Putting so much money (and therefore power) into any individual's hands is against the best interests of society. It's like when people give maximum ideological power to God. Humanity has already lost since God (which typically means His earthly representatives) is entirely in control.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 If you really can't see how your logic is flawed than I see no hope for furthering the discussion and we will just be going around in circles. Your definition for greed, which seems to be if you have wealth then you are greedier than someone who does not, is not only wrong it is unsupported and childish.

No, it is not unsupported. The very definition supports it.
And "childish?" How is it "childish" to use a word logically in its commonly accepted context?

The only reason this discussion is "going around in circles" is because you don't understand an incredibly simple concept. If no specific individuals or groups are excluded from recognition as being "greedy," the word loses much of its meaning. The more you have and want, the more sensible it is to call you "greedy." If, on the other hand, you're an average Joe (or Jane) who wants more possessions or power, you might be somewhat greedy -- but you're not as greedy as someone who already is in an elite positiona nd wants more. It's a matter of judging things approximately by degree. Apparently, you missed out on something, but it's not very hard to understand.

It also holds true for those born into positions of wealth and privilege, especially if they cling to their statuses and use them to place others in their service. Similar logic lets us refer to those under poverty conditions as "poverty-stricken."

Grandpa h.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: grandpa No, it is not unsupported. The very definition supports it. And "childish?" How is it "childish" to use a word logically in its commonly accepted context?

That's not the "commonly accepted context", and you know it. If you think so, I challenge you to produce poll results in support of your absurd re-definition.

Quote by: grandpa If, on the other hand, you're an average Joe (or Jane) who wants more possessions or power, you might be somewhat greedy -- but you're not as greedy as someone who already is in an elite positiona nd wants more.

What if you're Joe and you want to own more than the rich guy? Wouldn't that make you greedier than him?

[chrisphd]

What if you're Joe and you want to own more than the rich guy? Wouldn't that make you greedier than him?

Your level of greed depends on your financial wealth/possesions. For example, if a financially struggling individual wishes to save up for a car for his own needs, and as a result, saves all his money for himself, this might be considered as greed by due to his selfish want for more money/possesions. Does society frown upon this guy? Some do, some don't. Relative to a rich guy, he's not being greedy, because he would consider a car to be quite inexpensive and essential, and so that is defintely acceptable. Someone who is much poorer, struggling for food, would think the man is being greedy, as he used the money to buy just a car for himself, when he could have used it to feed them. Basically, rich people see richer people as being more greedy, where as rich people see poorer people as being acceptable. By rich, this means someone who has alot of possesions/money at a given time. Now let's say our financially struggling guy decides to save up for a lamborghini rather than just a ford, then would he be more greedy than the richer man who has a mere porshe? No. THis wouldn't make him more greedy than the owner of the porshe at the time. But if the man were to eventually save up and buy the lamborghin somehow, then when he exceeds the wealth of the porshe owner he becomes more greedy. Until then, he has a desire to be more greedy than the rich man, rather than being actually more greedy.

[LadiesMan217]

Until then, he has a desire to be more greedy than the rich man, rather than being actually more greedy.

What are you talking about? No one has a desire to be greedy. People have a desire for wealth not for greed. We are all greedy to some level or another. Let's say a man starts a business and due to this man's hard work and business savvy this business flourishes and grows into a major corporation, do you think it is fair to call this man greedy simply based on his tremendous level of success and ability to produce? I don't and perhaps Morgan_Freeman will agree. You must be able to see the flaw in thinking "Jack has more than Jill so Jack is greedier than Jill". When you advocate something like this it sounds childish because it gives the impression that you can't think beyond something as ridiculous as "rich is bad".

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Let's say a man starts a business and due to this man's hard work and business savvy this business flourishes and grows into a major corporation, do you think it is fair to call this man greedy simply based on his tremendous level of success and ability to produce? I don't and perhaps Morgan_Freeman will agree.

Actually, I disagree. But that's because I think greed is good.

Quote by: LadiesMan217 You must be able to see the flaw in thinking "Jack has more than Jill so Jack is greedier than Jill". When you advocate something like this it sounds childish because it gives the impression that you can't think beyond something as ridiculous as "rich is bad".

Whether rich is good or bad, their usage of "greed" is simply incorrect and isn't supported by any dictionary.

[LadiesMan217]

Actually, I disagree. But that's because I think greed is good.

Thats what I have been getting at this whole time but that was different from the original argument.

Whether rich is good or bad, their usage of "greed" is simply incorrect and isn't supported by any dictionary.

Very true.

[chrisphd]

What are you talking about? No one has a desire to be greedy. People have a desire for wealth not for greed.

Firstly, when i said the man desired to be greedy, that was an implication of his desire for wealth. Anyone who desires to be wealthy and at the same time desires to not be greedy is being irrational.

t's say a man starts a business and due to this man's hard work and business savvy this business flourishes and grows into a major corporation, do you think it is fair to call this man greedy simply based on his tremendous level of success and ability to produce?

If the man reaps a large profit from the business, this doesn't mean he is greedy. I defined wealth as your possesion/money value, and therefore if the business owner does not own expensive possesions and gives his money away or invests it back into the business, then he is not considered wealthy and therefore can be considered to be not greedy either. Wealth does not depend on salary. If the man however uses his profit to buy things for himself, rather than give it away, he is being greedy.

You must be able to see the flaw in thinking "Jack has more than Jill so Jack is greedier than Jill".

If jack has more than jill, then jack is being greedy if he does not give his excess posessions to jill.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: chrisphd Firstly, when i said the man desired to be greedy, that was an implication of his desire for wealth. Anyone who desires to be wealthy and at the same time desires to not be greedy is being irrational.

This is statement is a circus sideshow of flawed premises and nonsensical grammar. I don't even know where to begin.

Quote by: chrisphd If the man however uses his profit to buy things for himself, rather than give it away, he is being greedy.

Trivially true.

Quote by: chrisphd If jack has more than jill, then jack is being greedy if he does not give his excess posessions to jill.

Again, trivially true. Just as Jane is being greedy by coveting Jack's possessions.

[LadiesMan217]

If the man reaps a large profit from the business, this doesn't mean he is greedy. I defined wealth as your possesion/money value, and therefore if the business owner does not own expensive possesions and gives his money away or invests it back into the business, then he is not considered wealthy and therefore can be considered to be not greedy either. Wealth does not depend on salary. If the man however uses his profit to buy things for himself, rather than give it away, he is being greedy.

There is so many contradictions and flaws in this statement that I can see that to try to engage in debate with you would utterly fruitless.

[chrisphd]

There is so many contradictions and flaws in this statement that I can see that to try to engage in debate with you would utterly fruitless.

What a compelling argument. You could have just said that you concede.

[chrisphd]

LadiesMan217 could not point out a contradiction because no such condradiction existed.

LadiesMan217 says my argument contains at least 1 contradiction and purhaps is also flawed , so let's try to find out which part of the argument contradicts itself.
First i say:

if the man reaps a large profit from the business, this doesn't mean he is greedy.

This is not inconsistent with my arguments, as wealth is not nessesarily proportional to the profit obtained by the business. An example of this is if the business owner were to give his profits away immediately. Therefore, no contradiction here.

Otherwise, i went on to say:

I defined wealth as your possesion/money value,and therefore if the business owner does not own expensive possesions and gives his money away or invests it back into the business, then he is not considered wealthy

If you read my post, my definition of "wealth" in terms of this argument was the value of one's money/possesions. Therefore it follows that if a business owner has no possesions/money the business owner is not wealthy. That's no so hard to understand is it?

I then say:

and therefore can be considered to be not greedy either.

This was not illogical, as it followed from my earlier premise that greed is proportional to wealth. So do you think that my contradiction lies here?
Clearly not.
I guess if you are right that there is a contradiction, it must be in these last few segments. Let's have a look:

Wealth does not depend on salary.

This is logical based on my definition of wealth in this argument. Wealth is defined as the value of one's money/possesions. Therefore one's wealth cannot be determined based on one's salary. That is, someone with a large income can give all their money away, and therefore be considered to be not wealthy, or one with a large salary can keep all the money for him/herself and therefore be considered wealthy by my definition. Therefore it follows that salary does not determine one's wealth, because there is an extra step in determining wealth, which is, whether one decides to keep the money or give it away. So there is no "contradiction" here either.
Finally, i say:

If the man however uses his profit to buy things for himself, rather than give it away, he is being greedy.

This stems from my premise that wealth is proportional to greed. It follows logically that if a man keeps his money to buy possesions, his wealth is greater than if he were to give his money away, and therefore using my wealth/greed premise, he will be greedy.

Conclusion:
There is no "contradiction" despite LadiesMan217's hope that one might exist.
In future, i hope that you would carefully think about and analyse an argument before recklessly claiming that contradictions exist within it.

[LadiesMan217]

If the man reaps a large profit from the business, this doesn't mean he is greedy. I defined wealth as your possesion/money value, and therefore if the business owner does not own expensive possesions and gives his money away or invests it back into the business, then he is not considered wealthy and therefore can be considered to be not greedy either. Wealth does not depend on salary. If the man however uses his profit to buy things for himself, rather than give it away, he is being greedy.

First of all, this statement has no support other than it your own personal view. By your own logic anyone who buys something expensive then he is being greedy, the man works hard for his money so he can do with it as he chooses and you say that if he spends it on something for himself then that is act of greed? I think that is pretty ridiculous. Who do you think is greedier, the man who who works hard for his money or the man who wants him to give it away? I am leaning towards the latter

[chrisphd]

First of all, this statement has no support other than it your own personal view. By your own logic anyone who buys something expensive then he is being greedy, the man works hard for his money so he can do with it as he chooses and you say that if he spends it on something for himself then that is act of greed? I think that is pretty ridiculous. Who do you think is greedier, the man who who works hard for his money or the man who wants him to give it away? I am leaning towards the latter

I agree that is supported by my own personal view, however my arguments have indeed been consistent, based on my greed/wealth premise.

Now to answer your question, reguarding the validity of the premise. Who is greedier, the man who buys the expensive item, or the man who wants the rich man to give his money away? My answer is the man who buys the expensive item.
This is because the man who buys the expensive item worked hard, not so he could save the lives of those who were dying in the poorer nations of hunger etc, but so he could buy an expensive item for himself. I consider this an act of greed.

[LadiesMan217]

I agree that is supported by my own personal view, however my arguments have indeed been consistent, based on my greed/wealth premise.

Since this is your own personal view with no real support I see no purpose in debating it.

Now to answer your question, reguarding the validity of the premise. Who is greedier, the man who buys the expensive item, or the man who wants the rich man to give his money away? My answer is the man who buys the expensive item. This is because the man who buys the expensive item worked hard, not so he could save the lives of those who were dying in the poorer nations of hunger etc, but so he could buy an expensive item for himself. I consider this an act of greed.

Why are those living in poor nations entitled to the rewards another man has reaped simply because of need?