Greed is good

[castille]

Do you agree?


We were born greedy. Who criticises the babies that cry for their bottle, or the attention of their mother? Who criticises the children that fight over toys?

The majority of people behave according to society's rules. According to Christianity, greed is a sin. According to Confucianism, greed destroys the balance of life (moderation). That pretty much covers the Western world (which is mostly Christian), and China/Japan/Korea. I'm sure the Islamic/Buddhist faiths have similiar anti-greed rules.

Even if you are athiest, most of your values will have come from the major religion of your country or culture.

As we grow up, society tells us what to do. "Don't trust anyone", "rich people are bad", "poor people are bad too", "Greed is bad and all corporations are evil lords".


We were born greedy....whats wrong with moderated greed? Certainly we need to ensure people don't start killing each other for a dollar. But the basic principle of greed isn't bad. Its just how we humans were born.

[G. Adams]

Greed isn't good, nor do I think we are naturally greedy, I think we are naturally programmed to survive. If greed will help us, then we are greedy, and in those situations I don't blame people for being greedy. But when there is an abundance and people are greedy, then I certainly do think greed is both morally wrong and unnessecary.

As for the examples of babies crying for their bottles, ?? What do you expect from them? "Oh mother I am quite hungry but I wouldn't want to be greedy, why not put me in a sweatshop and I'll pay my own way..." They're babies for god sake, they're hungry and can't get food for themself, nor can they communicate clearly, of course their going to cry, it's their way of asking for food, or a diaper change, or whatever it is they want.

[Impenitent]

yes, humans are greedy...

terrible twos...

greed is good

[darwinist]

IMP

You knew i had to post something here. :)

Greed is not good!

Consider the following:-

Darwin and Evolutionary Psychology:
A New Theory of Four Basic Human Drives

A recent book on motivation offers a new theory on basic drives in humans: Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices, by Paul R. Lawrence and Nitin Nohria (Jossey Bass, 2001). These two Harvard Business School professors draw evidence for their four-drive theory from evolutionary psychology and Darwin as well as from the social sciences and business. Human beings are driven to seek ways to fulfill all four drives because these drives are the product of the species’ common evolutionary heritage: they increase the ability of our genes to survive. They make a good case for the following basic drives:

The drive to acquire objects and experiences that improve our status relative to others.
The drive to bond with others in long-term relationships of mutual care and commitment.
The drive to learn and to make sense of the world and of ourselves.
The drive to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our beliefs, and our resources from harm.
Each drive also has a counter-productive side. For example, when the drive to acquire becomes excessively competitive it diminishes respect for others; when the drive to defend one’s current thinking becomes excessive it diminishes the drive to learn new perspectives.

These four drives exist in each of us, and determine the choices we make. In some people, one drive will be more developed than others, creating an imbalance. In some jobs, some drives will be emphasized more than others. The authors suggest that organizational life can be enhanced when attention is paid to all four drives.

The independence of these drives is what forces people to think and to choose, because not all drives can be met at all times. These four drives are what make people distinctly human- complex beings with complex motives and complex choices.

While debating this above issue. One person with an Nihilistic outlook. Said:

--- Greed is not a syndrome, it is the basis for LIFE... life demands greed... life is always wanting to sustain itself and sustain itself better and better... that is human life, not a social system...

While another more enlighten individual Said:

--- The conditions of our current way of living demand greed, i other words our capitalist system requires you to be greedy to survive. If you change our mode of living to a communist or socialist one, then greed is not neccesary for life. Of course you could argue you need to have a greedless society before you start communism or it will fail.

Greed is, in my opinion, just another word for absolute self-concern in relation to our most primitive drive of self-preservation. To succeed in one's environment socially and economically is to survive, and competitiveness is an aspect of this. Greed however, is another thing entirely.

I think 'greed' is an excessive desire for something. That why i think it is a bye product of the survivial instict. For example, if threaten by a 'food shortage'. One might become 'greedy', horde all the food. Fight anyone for the food. In order to survive.

[Impenitent]

"life is the will to power and nothing besides...."

greed is good...

"What is good?— Everything that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself.

What is bad?— Everything that is born of weakness.

What is happiness?— The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.

Not contentedness but more power; not peace but war; not virtue but fitness (Renaissance-style virtue, virtù, moraline-free virtue).

The weak and the failures shall perish: first principle of our love of man. And they shall even be given every possible assistance.

What is more harmful than any vice?— Active pity for all the failures and all the weak—Christianity ..."

...

"It is a painful, horrible spectacle that has dawned on me: I have drawn back the curtain from the corruption of man. In my mouth, this word is at least free from one suspicion: that it might involve a moral accusation of man. It is meant—let me emphasize this once more—moraline-free: so much so that I experience this corruption most strongly precisely where men have so far aspired most deliberately to "virtue" and "godliness." I understand corruption, as you will guess, in the sense of décadence: it is my contention that all the values in which mankind now sums up its supreme desiderata are décadence-values.

I call an animal, a species, or an individual corrupt when it loses its instincts; when it chooses, when it prefers, what is disadvantageous for it. A history of "lofty sentiments," of the "ideals of mankind"—and it is possible that I shall have to write it—would almost explain too why man is so corrupt.

Life itself is to my mind the instinct for growth, for durability, for an accumulation of forces, for power: where the will to power is lacking, there is decline. It is my contention that all the supreme values of mankind lack this will,—that the values which are symptomatic of decline, nihilistic values, are lording it under the holiest names."

the quoted portions are Nietzsche

[Anarchist Patriot]

Religion teaches us that we must be giving to one another. Only by renouncing things of this world can we be saved.

Remember the rich dude who came to Jesus and said "What must I do to be saved"

"Do you keep the 10 commandments"
"well Duh... I keep all them. But there has to be something else"
"OK, I'll tell you where its at...

That Jaguar you go parked out there? Sell it. And give up that gold. Sell your house. Give up the chicks and the booze and the party life. Stop going to the disco looking to score. Sell that sterio. Sell that Harley you been riding. Sell them diamond rings and that gold medellion. Give it all up and follow me."

So he goes away in a huff.

Jerusalem Slim has an answer to it all.

Its easier for a camel to get through an eye of a needle than for than a rich dude to get into heaven.

Something to ponder while buying your next car.

[Sodfather]

I apologize for the brevity of this post, but any human who's lived in this world for a year knows that greed is "ungood" as Orwell would say. It's not difficult to see--just watch Scarface.

[castille]

The only reason we coorperate is to advance our greed.

Why did cavemen gather in tribes? They would benefit greater from hunting food together than alone.


But threaten to shoot a man or his wife, and 90% of the time it will be his wife.


I'm not talking about excessive greed, Stalin-style. Definition of greed is simply getting what you want. Laws keep people from taking whatever they want (ie. I can't kill Bill Gates, rape his daughter, and steal his money since the consequences would not be beneficial). But give a man unlimited power, and he will abuse it.

Just ask Stalin and Hitler what they did with their power.

[jhfenton]

Enlightened "self interest" is good. It is the engine that drives economic, technological, and social progress.

When "self interest" inspires one to use force or fraud to take from another, then the "self interest" is destructive.

Whether "greed" is good or bad is a matter of terminology. Enlightened self interest is good. Destructive self interest is bad.

[Famicommie]

Greed - An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

Not entirely a matter of terminology, as the word greed implies excess and avarice.

[Man Against Time]

A baby that wants a bottle... needs to eat. That is by definition not greedy.

Babies also shit on themselves and will marinate in it until someone helps them. I dont see how this is a good model to follow by virtue of the fact that babies do it.

[jhfenton]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Famicommie,)
Greed - An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

Not entirely a matter of terminology, as the word greed implies excess and avarice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>To my mind, a desire to increase one's material wealth is not excessive as long as it doesn't lead one to disregard the rights of others in the process (i.e., resort to force or fraud).

Anyway, who is to decide how much I need or deserve? If I am a firearms enthusiast -- I am -- is anything beyond one handgun, one shotgun, and one rifle excessive? What if I hunt rabbits and elk? Do I get two rifles? What if I just want to collect firearms like some people collect stamps or coins? At what point is my collection more than I need or deserve?

To me, the only meaningful definition is based on the means one is willing to use to acquire the desired material wealth.

[Man Against Time]

To my mind, a desire to increase one's material wealth is not excessive as long as it doesn't lead one to disregard the rights of others in the process (i.e., resort to force or fraud).

...which is the definition of greed.

[castille]

But if you eat a cheeseburger, you're disregarding the rights of a cow.

What about bread? Disregarding the rights of wheat. (Plants have feelings you know)

So therefor, every action we do is greed. Walk down the street? What about preserving the poor pavement? If every man in the world walked down the same street they'll eventually break the pavement, destroying the hard work of whoever made that pavement!


To avoid greed....sit in the middle of the forest and starve to death.

[Leopard]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
But if you eat a cheeseburger, you're disregarding the rights of a cow.

What about bread? Disregarding the rights of wheat. (Plants have feelings you know)

So therefor, every action we do is greed. Walk down the street? What about preserving the poor pavement? If every man in the world walked down the same street they'll eventually break the pavement, destroying the hard work of whoever made that pavement!


To avoid greed....sit in the middle of the forest and starve to death.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

ROFL!!!

rights of a cow? rights of wheat? feelings = rights?

Where do you get this stuff?

Rights are nothing more than an agreement between 'people' as to how to act. They are no different then cultural/religious rules or governmental laws. They are/were created to effect a better environment for all concerned. To have a 'right' a HUMAN (or other being capable of rational thought) must agree to reciprocate that 'right' onto others: I cannot claim a 'Right to Live' if I do not respect the same right in others (ie: committ murder).

A cow has no 'rights' as we understand them, perhaps he has 'cow rights' with respect to other cows, but he does not understand and thereby cannot reciprocate the right back to humans. The same applies to wheat... grass... insects... rocks... meteors... viruses...

Back to the Thread:
Agree totally with jhFenton here - the wishy washy dictionary definition is too vague and leaves too much room for interpretation: 'no more than is needed' is poor balderdash and smacks of communistic sentiments...

michael

[Man Against Time]

I think we can all agree when one abandons concern for how he attains these things he wants, he is being greedy, correct?

That should leave the bullshit stamp-collecting argument out the door.

Now that we have left that out in the cold, we can proceed. Not being concerned with the manner of attaining anything is A- certainly no good for any society that might want a shot at surviving, and B- certainly misguided and blind to anything higher that would give the individual any power over himself.

[Leopard]

I would not pigeon-hole it so...

The concern for the 'method' of attaining things points to personal morality, whereas greed denotes a combination of obsession and quantity. People use 'greed' to describe someone who might use very 'moral' methods, but due to the 'excessive' amount and obsessive compulsion, is still considered a 'negative'.

I say its best not to use words with so broad and vague meanings but with very negative (or positive) connotations. If someone is taking action which harms others, that is immoral. If someone enjoys playing the game of 'business' to the extent that their personal lives and family suffer, then they might be considered obsessed.

michael

[Man Against Time]

And not greedy? I think youre arguing semantics just for the sake of attaching your own opinion to something, rather than being satisfied with an acceptable consensus so we can move on to the point of the argument.

[Leopard]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Man Against Time,)
And not greedy? I think youre arguing semantics just for the sake of attaching your own opinion to something, rather than being satisfied with an acceptable consensus so we can move on to the point of the argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

yeah, I see how you could get that from my post...

let me explain a bit:
You said "I think we can all agree when one abandons concern for how he attains these things he wants, he is being greedy, correct?"

I can think of a situation that fits this definition yet most would not consider greedy:
The desperate man, hungry, thirsty will abandon some if not all concern to attain the things (food and water) he wants.

Greed in its everyday useage is pure opinion, totally subjective, and so, to me... a useless term with the only effect of negatively spinning a statement.

In any and every discussion, the people involved need a unified understanding of the definitions of terms used: if Greed is not defined to a specific level, then this discussion IS pointless because it will never amount to anything.

What is wrong with asking for clarification?

Perhaps if we said: total selfishness is good, or, self-interest is good, or something along those lines - we would have a topic to debate/discuss... but 'greed'? My communist brother thinks that anyone purchasing any auto worth more than the cheapest one on the market is 'greed'... I think we would all have different opinions on that, but will this change his mind?

for the record, I believe it is actually self-interest that has caused the technical and technilogical revolution over the past 200 years - if somehow this is the result of 'greed' then I say it is good. On the other hand, I consider Hitler and most prominent political figures to actually represent 'greed' in its most pure form - desire for power over others. This is bad bad bad, not good.

the sometiimes greedy, sometimes needy, sometimes charitable,
michael

[Man Against Time]

I also agree that wanting a car that offers thing you do not need is stupid. Perhaps not greedy; more like shallow, stupid, and sad.

and the starving man argument is pointless< because i am obviously arguing about abandonment of concern after a man"s needs are met< not while he is starving to death> (some virus is making my keyboard queer< bear with this shitty punctuation)