Political Crossfire Forums

[thefranzkafkafront]

I've heard a lot of bad press on this board over greed, a lot of its emotional bulls**t so though considering this is one of the more rational parts of the board we could have a proper discussion it.

Leave you emotions at the door please, rationality only thank you.

So lets start with a definition of greed, i always challege someone to produce this whenever they start citing it as a problem.

Now there are as many definitions for a word as their are dictionaries, and none of them are infallible, but i did a bit of the ol' research and this is one i came up with that im fairly satisfied with.

Quote: Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs.

Firstly and foremost something that really came up was the fact that it was the 'desire' not the action in which 'greed' was contained, so that if you came about a large amount of possions by luck you would not be greedy (something i imagine most people would agree with some what innately)
Secondly it appears that acquiring things is far more greedy than retaining them.

Finlay the most interesting point, is the notion of greed being passing what you need.

Now this is were the money maker really is, because to me this screams of Aristotelean ethics, (lets not forget the absolutely massive influence Aristotle had on both western (and to an extent) eastern schools of thought)

To those of you familiar with Nicomeacean ethic's, the term 'aris' uses is 'the Golden mean'. That in order for a person to be Virtuous (note Virtuous not good) he has to act and live in a world in between that of excesses and deficiencies.

However one notable thing is that 'Aris' states time and time again that there can be no compulsion in his ethic, none at all. A person cannot be made virtous, so while greed being a vice of excess, there was no compulsion for a greedy person to change.

Now the influence of virtue ethics (as its called) on Christian ethics cannot be understated, although these days seeing as its largely 'works' orientated its mainly confined to the catholic church. While there has been no intentional warping of the ethic, there has however been a somewhat loss in the nature of compulsion towards it.

That is, while a greedy man was one of vice in virtue ethic and a man not to follow but not to despise as to his nature, in Christian ethics a system of the seven deadly sins some what evolved meaning that if you where in excess (Christianity makes light some what of the deficiencies) you where a character to despise.

Thus in the west greed really started to get its bad name, in its modern incarnation.

But then theres this really funky idea of having more than you need?
Is that not a stupidly fallible principle, how can you quantify what you need, you obviously don't 'need' a computer, so is it greedy to want one, is it even greedy to own one?

I've got more but thats just to kick the topic off, I'm not picking on Christianity, we've got Buddhism, German idealism, socialism, communism and existentialism to go yet kids.

Thus i put it to you, greed, why has it got such a bad press.

[George W Bush]

a unique perspective.

AFAIC, nothings wrong with 'greed' as defined.

When its meant that greed deprives someone equally as entitled (based on whatever condition you can imagine), its inflammatory.

I like the actual definition because, in that case, were all greedy in at least ONE area or more. Having hobbys seems to reflect the 'need factor. that is, something not needed but had anyway.

[thefranzkafkafront]

George W Bush wrote: a unique perspective.

AFAIC, nothings wrong with 'greed' as defined.

When its meant that greed deprives someone equally as entitled (based on whatever condition you can imagine), its inflammatory.

I like the actual definition because, in that case, were all greedy in at least ONE area or more. Having hobbys seems to reflect the 'need factor. that is, something not needed but had anyway.

Intresting, when you say 'equally' i assume you mean equality is that correct?

[Taliesin]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: I've heard a lot of bad press on this board over greed, a lot of its emotional bulls**t so though considering this is one of the more rational parts of the board we could have a proper discussion it.

Leave you emotions at the door please, rationality only thank you.

So lets start with a definition of greed, i always challege someone to produce this whenever they start citing it as a problem.

Now there are as many definitions for a word as their are dictionaries, and none of them are infallible, but i did a bit of the ol' research and this is one i came up with that im fairly satisfied with.

Quote: Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs.

Firstly and foremost something that really came up was the fact that it was the 'desire' not the action in which 'greed' was contained, so that if you came about a large amount of possions by luck you would not be greedy (something i imagine most people would agree with some what innately)
Secondly it appears that acquiring things is far more greedy than retaining them.

Finlay the most interesting point, is the notion of greed being passing what you need.

Now this is were the money maker really is, because to me this screams of Aristotelean ethics, (lets not forget the absolutely massive influence Aristotle had on both western (and to an extent) eastern schools of thought)

To those of you familiar with Nicomeacean ethic's, the term 'aris' uses is 'the Golden mean'. That in order for a person to be Virtuous (note Virtuous not good) he has to act and live in a world in between that of excesses and deficiencies.

However one notable thing is that 'Aris' states time and time again that there can be no compulsion in his ethic, none at all. A person cannot be made virtous, so while greed being a vice of excess, there was no compulsion for a greedy person to change.

Now the influence of virtue ethics (as its called) on Christian ethics cannot be understated, although these days seeing as its largely 'works' orientated its mainly confined to the catholic church. While there has been no intentional warping of the ethic, there has however been a somewhat loss in the nature of compulsion towards it.

That is, while a greedy man was one of vice in virtue ethic and a man not to follow but not to despise as to his nature, in Christian ethics a system of the seven deadly sins some what evolved meaning that if you where in excess (Christianity makes light some what of the deficiencies) you where a character to despise.

Thus in the west greed really started to get its bad name, in its modern incarnation.

But then theres this really funky idea of having more than you need?
Is that not a stupidly fallible principle, how can you quantify what you need, you obviously don't 'need' a computer, so is it greedy to want one, is it even greedy to own one?

I've got more but thats just to kick the topic off, I'm not picking on Christianity, we've got Buddhism, German idealism, socialism, communism and existentialism to go yet kids.

Thus i put it to you, greed, why has it got such a bad press.

It is not greed as you have defined, that has gotten such a bad press, but deprivation. In my mind there is nothing wrong with greed; just the deprivation that usually accompanies it.

[Stygma]

I think the only bad type of greed is that which leads you to demand what you are not rightfully entitled to. Welfare is bad greed, theft is bad greed, a minimum wage is bad greed; but there's nothing wrong with getting stuff, with making oodles of money (as long as it is legal and ethical), with trying to fulfill your wildest dreams through your own effort.

[Cato]

Quote: Thus i put it to you, greed, why has it got such a bad press.

'Greed' is a funny word. The term Aristotle uses is 'pleonexia', which literally means 'self-propagating desire', which is, of course, dangerous. Desires, according to Aristotle, can grow to infinitum. Hence, the 'tyrant' is born from pleonexia.

The English word 'Greed' should probably be understood to mean 'excessive desire'. For example, desiring a computer, a couple cookies after dinner, and enough extra money for retirement shouldn't be considered greedy, whereas wanting 10 computers for yourself, 25 extra cookies after dinner, and a trillion dollars in the bank should. In other words, to be greedy is to desire more than is reasonable, and, to be sure, healthy.

Moreover, what is deemed 'greedy' is relative to the particular situation and individual. For instance, if I'm a relatively big person, it may be reasonable for me to eat no more than four cookies after dinner, whereas a smaller person may reasonably have three. You see, my 'reasonable amount' is not this smaller man's. Again, what is deemed 'greedy' is relative to the situation and individual. Indeed, it's probably also relative to the culture; here we get into the question of what is perceived to be greedy. For now, let's just say that greed is excessive (by some standard) desire.

'Greedy', we should expect, is used pejoratively by members of a community to refer to individuals who are either (a) harming themselves, or (b) harming the community at large with irrational avarice. Remember, there is only so much to go around, and one cannot desire and pursue everything without necessarily coming into conflict with others. Such a person will necessarily be viewed as 'evil' by his fellows.

[The Impeacher]

thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Quote: Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs.


it gets a "bum rap" because one person's greed usually conflicts with the needs of others... how we got to this point in the thread with nary the mention of "self-interest" is most shocking!

greed is want, why is it good to want more than you need?

[thefranzkafkafront]

The Impeacher wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Quote: Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs.


it gets a "bum rap" because one person's greed usually conflicts with the needs of others... how we got to this point in the thread with nary the mention of "self-interest" is most shocking!

greed is want, why is it good to want more than you need?

What dose one need?

[mojo]

Quote: greed is want, why is it good to want more than you need?

Because If we did not want then our world would be both very uninteresting and digressive. Greed has been directly related to human progress.

But dont confuse greed with exploitation. The monger who exploits others for their own self interst is evil.

[Taliesin]

Stygma wrote: I think the only bad type of greed is that which leads you to demand what you are not rightfully entitled to. Welfare is bad greed, theft is bad greed, a minimum wage is bad greed; but there's nothing wrong with getting stuff, with making oodles of money (as long as it is legal and ethical), with trying to fulfill your wildest dreams through your own effort.

What are you rightfully entitled to?

[The Impeacher]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: The Impeacher wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Quote: Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs.


it gets a "bum rap" because one person's greed usually conflicts with the needs of others... how we got to this point in the thread with nary the mention of "self-interest" is most shocking!

greed is want, why is it good to want more than you need?

What dose one need?

less then one wants?

[The Impeacher]

Taliesin wrote: Stygma wrote: I think the only bad type of greed is that which leads you to demand what you are not rightfully entitled to. Welfare is bad greed, theft is bad greed, a minimum wage is bad greed; but there's nothing wrong with getting stuff, with making oodles of money (as long as it is legal and ethical), with trying to fulfill your wildest dreams through your own effort.

What are you rightfully entitled to?

i also look forward to Stygma's or fkf's "ethical" justification of GREED... :roll:

[George W Bush]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: George W Bush wrote: a unique perspective.

AFAIC, nothings wrong with 'greed' as defined.

When its meant that greed deprives someone equally as entitled (based on whatever condition you can imagine), its inflammatory.

I like the actual definition because, in that case, were all greedy in at least ONE area or more. Having hobbys seems to reflect the 'need factor. that is, something not needed but had anyway.

Intresting, when you say 'equally' i assume you mean equality is that correct?

yes: based on the fact that both people put into the same objective an equal share - otherwise, its not greed because someone put into it MORE than another.

am i making sense?

[Stygma]

Taliesin wrote: Stygma wrote: I think the only bad type of greed is that which leads you to demand what you are not rightfully entitled to. Welfare is bad greed, theft is bad greed, a minimum wage is bad greed; but there's nothing wrong with getting stuff, with making oodles of money (as long as it is legal and ethical), with trying to fulfill your wildest dreams through your own effort.

What are you rightfully entitled to?

What you earn, without infringing on the rights of another person. What you contractually agree upon with another person or entity (a salary, for example). Of course, the most important entitlements you have are your rights. You are entitled to your property, so long as it was legally/justly acquired. You are entitled to your own intellectual power, your own ability, your own speech and expression. And nobody else is entitled to what you have earned.

[The Impeacher]

Stygma wrote: Taliesin wrote: Stygma wrote: I think the only bad type of greed is that which leads you to demand what you are not rightfully entitled to. Welfare is bad greed, theft is bad greed, a minimum wage is bad greed; but there's nothing wrong with getting stuff, with making oodles of money (as long as it is legal and ethical), with trying to fulfill your wildest dreams through your own effort.

What are you rightfully entitled to?

What you earn, without infringing on the rights of another person. What you contractually agree upon with another person or entity (a salary, for example). Of course, the most important entitlements you have are your rights. You are entitled to your property, so long as it was legally/justly acquired. You are entitled to your own intellectual power, your own ability, your own speech and expression. And nobody else is entitled to what you have earned.

correct me if i am wrong, but have you not just argued that you have no "right of greed," because of the rights [needs] of others?

in other words, greed is not a justification, but need and demonstration of no conflict of interests is then a "just acquisition"?

and not then the needs of the many a check on the wants of the few?

[Cato]

TI wrote: greed is want

No it isn't. Your definition is missing a couple words; try adding 'to excess'. Greed is to want to excess. Not simply to want.

Seriously, why do we call somebody greedy? Because they want something more than they need to survive at this very moment? That's stupid.

We simply must concern ourselves with the meaning of the word 'greed'. Otherwise, this is all just going to be senseless blather.

[The Impeacher]

Cato wrote: TI wrote: greed is want

No it isn't. Your definition is missing a couple words; try adding 'to excess'. Greed is to want to excess. Not simply to want.

Seriously, why do we call somebody greedy? Because they want something more than they need to survive at this very moment? That's stupid.

We simply must concern ourselves with the meaning of the word 'greed'. Otherwise, this is all just going to be senseless blather.

i agree of course, and like to throw in the word AVARICE whenever i get the chance, but...

fkf wrote: Finlay the most interesting point, is the notion of greed being passing what you need.

[...]

But then theres this really funky idea of having more than you need?

Is that not a stupidly fallible principle, how can you quantify what you need, you obviously don't 'need' a computer, so is it greedy to want one, is it even greedy to own one?

how would you quantify excessive, if not starting at a point past necessity?

what comes between need and greed? luxury maybe? probably "happiness," to be sure...

can one then actually separate "modern comsumerism" from greed, if the only definition of greed is "excessive want"?

i say one's greed begins when it conflicts with the needs of another...

[garyd]

First off that isn't greed. Greed sir is by it's nature obsseesive. I've known greedy people who didn't have a dime to their name and wealthy people who were the soul of charity.

Greed isn't about having things its about what you do with what you have.

[Stygma]

The Impeacher wrote: Stygma wrote: Taliesin wrote: Stygma wrote: I think the only bad type of greed is that which leads you to demand what you are not rightfully entitled to. Welfare is bad greed, theft is bad greed, a minimum wage is bad greed; but there's nothing wrong with getting stuff, with making oodles of money (as long as it is legal and ethical), with trying to fulfill your wildest dreams through your own effort.

What are you rightfully entitled to?

What you earn, without infringing on the rights of another person. What you contractually agree upon with another person or entity (a salary, for example). Of course, the most important entitlements you have are your rights. You are entitled to your property, so long as it was legally/justly acquired. You are entitled to your own intellectual power, your own ability, your own speech and expression. And nobody else is entitled to what you have earned.

correct me if i am wrong, but have you not just argued that you have no "right of greed," because of the rights [needs] of others?

in other words, greed is not a justification, but need and demonstration of no conflict of interests is then a "just acquisition"?

and not then the needs of the many a check on the wants of the few?
No, I am not arguing that whatsoever. A right is not the same thing as a need. I have the right to whatever I agree upon with my employer as my salary, but I do not have a right to a salary just because I need it.

[Taliesin]

Stygma wrote: Taliesin wrote: Stygma wrote: I think the only bad type of greed is that which leads you to demand what you are not rightfully entitled to. Welfare is bad greed, theft is bad greed, a minimum wage is bad greed; but there's nothing wrong with getting stuff, with making oodles of money (as long as it is legal and ethical), with trying to fulfill your wildest dreams through your own effort.

What are you rightfully entitled to?

What you earn, without infringing on the rights of another person. What you contractually agree upon with another person or entity (a salary, for example). Of course, the most important entitlements you have are your rights. You are entitled to your property, so long as it was legally/justly acquired. You are entitled to your own intellectual power, your own ability, your own speech and expression. And nobody else is entitled to what you have earned.
How does one legally/justly acquire property?