Political Crossfire Forums

[razergreen]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: What so damn wrong with greed

- greed is acquiring more than one needs
- There is nothing wrong with greed if you share, (unless sharing is somehow less right than greed is wrong.)
but
- if you chose to protect your property when other people want, it you are acting wrong.
and
-you have the right to possess property
however

Do you have the right to possess property you don'd need when other people want it?
-Other than by the principal of first come first serve,
no,
unless you believe that a persons need is less important than the right for someone to hoard.
so
if you don't believe in equality than greed is fine,

Even if you are a Libertarian you would believe that anything is ok as long as you don't violate the right of others, (http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml)
but
you are violating someones right to life and to liberty if you are preventing someone from acquiring something they need or want by holding it as your own
Thus
greed is not always right,
Therefore,
greed is sometimes wrong
unless you have no morals and don't believe in any rights, greed is wrong
Furthermore
If there are no rights, there are no wrongs so arguing that is a mute point

[ieatfood]

razergreen wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: What so damn wrong with greed

- greed is acquiring more than one needs
- There is nothing wrong with greed if you share, (unless sharing is somehow less right than greed is wrong.)
but
- if you chose to protect your property when other people want, it you are acting wrong.
and
-you have the right to possess property
however

Do you have the right to possess property you don'd need when other people want it?
-Other than by the principal of first come first serve,
no,
unless you believe that a persons need is less important than the right for someone to hoard.
so
if you don't believe in equality than greed is fine,

Even if you are a Libertarian you would believe that anything is ok as long as you don't violate the right of others, (http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml)
but
you are violating someones right to life and to liberty if you are preventing someone from acquiring something they need or want by holding it as your own
Thus
greed is not always right,
Therefore,
greed is sometimes wrong
unless you have no morals and don't believe in any rights, greed is wrong
Furthermore
If there are no rights, there are no wrongs so arguing that is a mute point

uh, technically, everyone wants more than what one needs
no one needs to have a computer
but you have one
does that mean you are immoral?

there are people starving in africa right now
you could sell your computer and SAVE their lives--right now
so are you immoral for not doing that?

gimme a break.

[Roy L]

razergreen wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: What so damn wrong with greed

- greed is acquiring more than one needs Please read the real dictionary definition of greed that I provided. It should help clear up the misconceptions that follow, which are all hopelessly confused and indefensible.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Roy L wrote: razergreen wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: What so damn wrong with greed

- greed is acquiring more than one needs Please read the real dictionary definition of greed that I provided. It should help clear up the misconceptions that follow, which are all hopelessly confused and indefensible.

What this.

Quote: Webster's New Universal Unabridged gives an exemplary definition that IMO matches educated usage quite precisely: "greed n. 1) excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs or deserves."


Your jusfication for this so far is soley that it is in a dictionary. Take a leaf out of Cato or A.D book and expand your arguments.

So ill ask again going back to an older question, what is it ones needs, or secondly how can you quantifiy what you deserves.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Cato wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: If greed is entirely subjective how can it then be quantified, is then the western man in the village in africa, most problaly greedy by definition without doing a single thing.

I didn't say it was subjective, I said it was relative.
Yes you did, however if things are relative are they not subjective?

Quote:
Quote: . . . Is then the western man in the village in Africa most problaly greedy by definition without doing a single thing.

I don't understand... If this 'western man' does nothing, I don't see why they would consider him greedy; he would simply starve. If he lived their lifestyle, took on their tools, then he wouldn't be looked on as greedy. Conversely, if he tried to live in their society with a pile of useless possessions, I just think they'd look on him as insane.

Native: 'Hrmm.. What's that box?'

Westerner: 'Why, it's a computer my good man..'

Native: 'What does it do?'

Westerner: 'Well, images appear on this flat part here, and sound comes out of these here...'

Native: 'What use is it? Will it help you hunt or farm, can you draw water with it?..'

Westerner: 'Well...'

Native: 'Show me how it works...'

Westerner: *frantically searching for a power-source*

You've constrained the point with the computer bit, my point was that should a man of average western income come and set up shop in an africa village (one with civilisation ect so that' no power socket sceanrio ends) would he not be considered greedy.


Quote: And would not the greedy man of the village in the western city then not be greedy as his yard stick for greed would have moved.

A farmer from a village in Africa moves to New York with all of his possessions... He was considered greedy in his village because he happened upon a satchel containing $1000, and wouldn't share the wealth with his starving family. Now he's in New York with his 1k. How wealthy is he now? He wont be able to afford to live there; nobody's going to call him greedy (unless they hear about how he didn't help out his family back home).
[/quote]
Exaclty so the yardstick is completely subjective to the situation.

Quote:
Quote: Is the defintion for greed is not universal it cannot be quantified, and if it cannot be quantified it cannot be said to exist as anything more than subjective emotional essement.

But it's relative, not subjective!
How are they so diffrent, evey man views the world through his eyes alone, in matters of culture eveything is subjective as it is based soley on human constructs and emotions.

[Roy L]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: razergreen wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: What so damn wrong with greed

- greed is acquiring more than one needs Please read the real dictionary definition of greed that I provided. It should help clear up the misconceptions that follow, which are all hopelessly confused and indefensible.

What this.

Quote: Webster's New Universal Unabridged gives an exemplary definition that IMO matches educated usage quite precisely: "greed n. 1) excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs or deserves."


Your jusfication for this so far is soley that it is in a dictionary. ?? No, that claim is of course flat false. I identified the fact that it matches the usage of skilled and educated native speakers and writers. Can't you read?
Quote:
So ill ask again going back to an older question, what is it ones needs, That is not difficult to ascertain: one needs that which lack of will result in jeopardy to one's life or health. Quote: or secondly how can you quantifiy what you deserves. I've already told you: reward commensurate with contribution, as measured by free market value.

[The Grandmaster]

garyd wrote: To be overzealous in their protection to see them as an end rather than as a means to and end.

Play chess Grandmaster?

I do indeed.

garyd wrote: It is easier to be rich and without desire than poor and with desire.

That is for damn sure!

[Robin Hood]

Isn't greed just (to put it into broad terms) wanting lots and lots of things (physical and metaphysical)? There doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with that.

[Cato]

Quote: Yes you did . . .

Well, that's annoying.. Where pray tell?

Quote: however if things are relative are they not subjective?

I'm not here to educate you. You have access to a dictionary, I presume.

Quote: You've constrained the point with the computer bit, my point was that should a man of average western income come and set up shop in an africa village (one with civilisation ect so that' no power socket sceanrio ends) would he not be considered greedy.

Again, I don't understand. How would the western man survive in an African village without changing his lifestyle? To be sure, he wouldn't be recieving his 'average western income' (unless, of course, he's working for an organization based in the developed world).

Quote: Exaclty so the yardstick is completely subjective to the situation.

You mean 'relative to the situation.'

Quote: How are they so diffrent, evey man views the world through his eyes alone, in matters of culture eveything is subjective as it is based soley on human constructs and emotions.

Relativity is based on relations, while subjectivity is personal. Anyway, these are two very different terms, and you really should disambiguate them, I mean, for your own sake.

[Cato]

garyd wrote: It is easier to be rich and without desire than poor and with[out (I'm assuming)] desire.

GM wrote: That is for damn sure!

Let's not be too hasty, GM. Now, the rich can more easily appease their desires, while the poor cannot. So, even if their desires are exactly the same (qualitatively and quantitatively), the poor man is more sorrowful because he cannot satisfy his, while the wealthy appears more at ease because he can. Appearances seldom denote reality; we should know this, as students of Plato. The poor seem more desirous because their few desires thwart them, while the wealthy seem at ease because their many desires are within their reach. I put it to you that the rich are wracked with more excessive desires than the poor, but the poor are simply more thwarted by the few they have.

What do you think?

[thefranzkafkafront]

Cato wrote: Quote: Yes you did . . .

Well, that's annoying.. Where pray tell?

Quote: however if things are relative are they not subjective?

I'm not here to educate you. You have access to a dictionary, I presume.

Quote: You've constrained the point with the computer bit, my point was that should a man of average western income come and set up shop in an africa village (one with civilisation ect so that' no power socket sceanrio ends) would he not be considered greedy.

Again, I don't understand. How would the western man survive in an African village without changing his lifestyle? To be sure, he wouldn't be recieving his 'average western income' (unless, of course, he's working for an organization based in the developed world).

Quote: Exaclty so the yardstick is completely subjective to the situation.

You mean 'relative to the situation.'

Quote: How are they so diffrent, evey man views the world through his eyes alone, in matters of culture eveything is subjective as it is based soley on human constructs and emotions.

Relativity is based on relations, while subjectivity is personal. Anyway, these are two very different terms, and you really should disambiguate them, I mean, for your own sake.

I hate it when arguments get into semantics so at the risk of not putting myself across properly ill try to reword it.

What i am trying to say is that according to you as far as i can tell and indeed the only conclusion i can logically come to, the defition of greed is internal to both the agent observing the event and the circumstances surrounding it.
In that it is both relative and subjective.

Indeed if this is so and as far as i can see it is, greed then is a completely fallible value judgement, as oposed to any sort of objective truth.

For example, a man killing another man, would in essence make that man a murder or at least a killer.
Where as a person aquiring object X would be greedy in some situations and completely normal in others.

Cleared up i hope?

[Cato]

Quote: I hate it when arguments get into semantics . . .

Me too.

Quote: What i am trying to say is that according to you as far as i can tell and indeed the only conclusion i can logically come to, the defition of greed is internal to both the agent observing the event and the circumstances surrounding it.
In that it is both relative and subjective.

Fair enough, 'greed' is in the eye of the beholder. However, I wouldn't say it's 'subjective', but 'inter-subjective' instead. That is, it's based on an entire culture's conception of excess, not just a single isolated individual's. It is also relative to culture and circumstance, as you say. We're agreed so far I think.

Quote: Indeed if this is so and as far as i can see it is, greed then is a completely fallible value judgement, as oposed to any sort of objective truth.

Why is it fallible? I don't understand? It's not an 'objective truth', to be sure, it's an inter-subjective truth. Every member of Jim's family thinks that Jim should share his lottery winnings with them; they all think him greedy for not doing so, and rightly so in their culture (inter-subjective and relative).

Quote: . . . a person aquiring object X would be greedy in some situations and completely normal in others.

I think we're agreed. However, this doesn't diminish the fact that greed, in its own inter-subjective and relative way, is bad ('bad' itself is inter-subjective). It breaks apart communities, leads one to harm others, and allows for one to fall into unhealthy excesses. The African man who found a satchel full of money, by all means, should help his family; his value system demands it.

Owning a computer, a car, a TV, etc. is necessary for normative life in western society (unfortunately). Owning these things has no stigma because they are necessary in western society. Inter-subjectively and relatively, they're O.K. to own. Everybody understands that you need a car to get to work on time in the morning, regardless of culture. I certainly understand why a hunter/gatherer needs his spear, and I hold that he would understand why I need my car (I actually use a bike) if he understood the dynamics of my culture and society.

[LetsGetReal]

Why would it be greedy for a man who acquired alot of wealth/goods(in just means) keep it and not share it with those unfortunate in his circle of friends or family? Or would it?

[Free Thinkr]

Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: razergreen wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: What so damn wrong with greed

- greed is acquiring more than one needs Please read the real dictionary definition of greed that I provided. It should help clear up the misconceptions that follow, which are all hopelessly confused and indefensible.

What this.

Quote: Webster's New Universal Unabridged gives an exemplary definition that IMO matches educated usage quite precisely: "greed n. 1) excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs or deserves."


Your jusfication for this so far is soley that it is in a dictionary. ?? No, that claim is of course flat false. I identified the fact that it matches the usage of skilled and educated native speakers and writers. Can't you read?
Actually, no, you made the claim that it matches the usage of 'skilled and educated' native speakers and writers.

Your evaluation may or may not be true; simply declaring it to be factual is disingenuous.

[Roy L]

Free Thinkr wrote: Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: Webster's New Universal Unabridged gives an exemplary definition that IMO matches educated usage quite precisely: "greed n. 1) excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs or deserves."

Your jusfication for this so far is soley that it is in a dictionary. ?? No, that claim is of course flat false. I identified the fact that it matches the usage of skilled and educated native speakers and writers. Can't you read?
Actually, no, you made the claim that it matches the usage of 'skilled and educated' native speakers and writers. No. That is not a mere claim, it is a fact, and its accuracy is easily verified by examining samples of educated writing that use the word (in the relevant literal sense, of course). Most others here merely make claims; I identify facts. And in most cases, the facts I identify, which disprove the other side's false claims, are self-evident and indisputable. Quote:
Your evaluation may or may not be true; ?? What are you talking about? Of course it's true. Any educated person who has read any significant amount of English literature knows that's what the word means. Who on earth do you think you are fooling with this "may or may not be true" nonsense? Quote: simply declaring it to be factual is disingenuous. <yawn> So, you've decided to join the club of refuse-to-know-niks? You have lots of company....

[Free Thinkr]

Roy L wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Actually, no, you made the claim that it matches the usage of 'skilled and educated' native speakers and writers. No. That is not a mere claim, it is a fact, and its accuracy is easily verified by examining samples of educated writing that use the word (in the relevant literal sense, of course).
The above is an assertion. You are simply asserting that it is a fact.

Quote: Most others here merely make claims; I identify facts.
No, you are making a claim. Saying that it is used in such a way in "samples of educated writing" is a claim. Calling it a fact does not make it so, no matter how you rephrase it.

Quote: And in most cases, the facts I identify, which disprove the other side's false claims, are self-evident and indisputable.
Actually, it's neither. "Greed" is a very subjective concept. Finding samples of usage that are very different in two pieces of literature would be quite an easy task; though I wonder what your qualification for determining whether said literature is "educated" is.

Quote: Quote: Your evaluation may or may not be true; ?? What are you talking about? Of course it's true. Any educated person who has read any significant amount of English literature knows that's what the word means. Who on earth do you think you are fooling with this "may or may not be true" nonsense?
Another assertion. You are very bad at making a case. Also, I wasn't even arguing as to whether or not your claim was true (in fact, it's not), but simply pointing out that it was an unsupported claim rather than a fact.

Quote: Quote: simply declaring it to be factual is disingenuous. <yawn> So, you've decided to join the club of refuse-to-know-niks? You have lots of company....
LOL. Well, I'm convinced! You say that all literature uses the term in one certain way, despite the obvious fact that they don't, so I'll just accept that. Thanks for the laugh, man.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: The English word 'Greed' should probably be understood to mean 'excessive desire'.

I agree, and do not see the benefit of attempting to rehabilitate this vice.

[cap'n queasy]

There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to.

In this I consider socialism to be greedy.

[Kindred]

cap'n queasy wrote: There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to.

In this I consider socialism to be greedy.

Earned. Interesting term. So, people who inherit things which they did nothing to earn....are they greedy?

[Kindred]

Quote: All irrelevant. I have already provided the real definition of greed. Learn it, and use it. Problem solved

Quote: "greed n. 1) excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs or deserves."

Quote: Notice the important implication of the second occurrence of the word, "or" this definition: it is not greedy to desire more than one needs, as long as one deserves it; nor is it greedy to desire more than one deserves, as long as one needs it. It is only when one neither needs nor deserves the desired item that desire becomes greed. Please take the time to rethink your position on greed in light of this definition.

Your interpretation of the definition is incorrect. The use of the word ‘or’ implies three alternative scenarios, not two; 1) one having an excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs, 2) one having a excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one deserves, and 3) one having an excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs and deserves.

My scenario clearly fits within the first, and arguably the third categories.

Your statement that my example is ‘irrelevant’ probably more highlights your misunderstanding of the dictionary meaning than anything else. A man who won’t spare a dollar of a billion dollar estate to save a thousand innocent men is greedy, irrespective of whether his estate is deserved or not.

Likewise, a man who would rather purchase a $50,000 car, rather than save thousands of innocent peoples lives, is acting greedily.

Quote: But you know what? What other people need and deserve has nothing whatever to do with what WE need or deserve.

Don’t be silly. We live in a global market place and undoubtedly benefit from the exploitation and destitution of third world nations on a daily basis.

Quote: So the plight of the poor in other countries has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone in this country buys a TV rather than making a donation to Save the Children.

Actually, it is a moral question which is of relevance so long as those circumstances exist. As long as you have the choice to save lives and chose not to, it is of great relevance. If the choice did not exist, it would be moot, but it does.

Quote: Now, if you are talking about international financial exploitation and oppression (as described in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" for example), then yes, greed in this country is a problem for poor people in other countries. But that's the owners and executives of big banks and so on being greedy for higher dividends and more valuable stock options. Not some ordinary guy buying a TV.

I’m talking about the type of financial exploitation referred to in that book, and books like it (see Age of Consent by Monbiot, Globalization and its Discontents by Stiglitz, Understanding Power by Chomsky, Fences and Windows by Klien for example). To isolate the theft to bankers is to over simplify the issue, as our governments have a prime role, and our governments, supposedly, represent us and act on our behalf. When we fail to address these issue, and continue to benefit from the pre-existing order, then it is at the behest of even the most ordinary person in society.