Greed..... Good or bad

[AVN]

I think greed is bad.

But after reading this post in another thread I start to having some doubts.

Originally posted by knowltok2
Stop it? Whatever for? Greed is the driving force behind most all of our social and technological advancement. Between the desire to possess more land, power, money or women, society has gotten to the wonderful state we are in now. I'll admit it has been a bumpy road, but without greed we would still be looking sitting in our straw huts quite content with the improvement that agriculture represented over hunting and gathering.

If we eliminate greed (not that it is possible) we will stagnate as a race, and be doomed to suffer the fate of every people who have turned inwards and given up on improvement and innovation.

Because the discussion was off-topic there I decided to start a new thread and to ask for the opinion of other CFC-posters.

And if you think it's bad, do you think we can eliminate greed ?

 

[CurtSibling]

Ack!

This looks oddly familiar.
I was involved in a little jaw-jaw with some of our posters about this.
Some of whom previously used to preach morality to we mere mortals about faith, society and other topics.

Now these same guys have replaced CREED with GREED.
To any who think greed is a positive and laudable force...
I quote the words of Denton Van Zan;

"Personally, you disgust me."

Greed for no reason is bad.
In my humble opinion...

It can't be turned into a virtue no matter how hard you try...

 

[Ozz]

Don't confuse greed with ambition, or the will to suceed.
These make the world a better place.

Greed is just taking to deprive others and to gain power
over them in doing so. It is destructive.

 

[Greadius]

Good or bad? Are you trying to break down a complex emotion into a black/white analysis...
How American

Greed, like most of the interesting aspects of the human condition, is both a virtue and a vice. In its greatest form, it is driving ambition towards individual success (often repackaged under other names because we don't like greed), at its worse it is manevolence in superiority.

However, greed is the second great motivating factor. If you can't get someone to do something out of love or self-interest, chances are you won't get them to do it at all.

 

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Greed is good, it's what makes our (western capitalist) civilization work.

You could call it ambition or something else, but ambition is also about acquiring more status and wealth, just like greed.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Ack!

This looks oddly familiar.
I was involved in a little jaw-jaw with some of our posters about this.
Some of whom previously used to preach morality to we mere mortals about faith, society and other topics.

Now these same guys have replaced CREED with GREED.
To any who think greed is a positive and laudable force...
I quote the words of Denton Van Zan;

"Personally, you disgust me."

Greed for no reason is bad.
In my humble opinion...

It can't be turned into a virtue no matter how hard you try...

Hmm...Don't remember preaching morality to any mere mortals about faith, society or any other topics. Doesn't mean I didn't, just don't remember it.

Originally posted by AVN
But after reading this post in another thread I start to having some doubts.

I was wondering when I'd get a response on that one.

See the thing is in how you define Greed. The word greed gets a bad reputation as we often associate it with those who want more than society deems appropriate. But greed, as defined (please no one bring out dictionary dot com or whatever) as wanting more, is not all bad. It is also a relative judgement. What to one person is 'greed' is to another person a healthy desire to achieve more and enjoy the fruits of honest labors.

An example: I currently teach a class on finance at a local University. The pay is quite good for a second job and it is allowing me to do a few more of the things my wife and I want to do. A little home improvement, and a nicer vacation. From some perspectives, what I am doing is greedy. I do not need the extra money to survive, or even to maintain a decent standard of living. I am therefore being greedy in my taking of extra means of support that could go to someone who 'deserves' it more.

As you might imagine, I disagree with this analysis. I see it as me being willing to trade my services to the community in return for pay. Along the way I have managed to further the education of many students and keep costs down (I don't require benefits or paid sabaticals) so that more of those students can enjoy said education. Society benefits from the increased availability of educational services. All of this is made possible by my 'greed'. If I had no desire to have more, to take better trips, to live in a nicer home, etc. I would not be offering these services at the lower rate that I cost.

The same is true throughout society. It isn't basic altruism that has driven the engines of technological progress. Edison didn't come up with and market the light bulb just because he could. Henry Ford didn't come up with the assembly line and market his cars to the masses because he thought everyone deserved to have a car. And the latest life saving drug didn't come out of a phamacutical lab because altruistic scientists volunteer to inovate. They show up every day and work hard because they want more. They want the better car, the nicer house, and the better golf club membership.

And it isn't just technology and the economy that benefits from people's desire to get ahead. Population's desires to have more security led to the formation of governments, and as much as they are maligned, they beat the old, "Nasty, Brutish, and Short" every day of the week (in sum total). The desire to keep what power and wealth they had lead the American Colonists to break from England. Considering relative tax burdons and protection costs, this can be seen in a greedy light. The same is true with the US Constitution. A document formed to, at core, protect the human and property rights of the people.

It all comes down to the definition of greed, which is relative. What to you is greed, may to me be only healthy desire for more. Without that desire for more, we will not explore the stars, we will not expand as a race, and we will ultimately fail in the contest of evolution against a species that has not abandoned greed.

 

[Heffalump]

originally posted by knowltok2
It all comes down to the definition of greed, which is relative.

Exactly.

It's ok to eat a second piece of pie. It's maybe less ok when the fellow next to you is starving.

I would argue that greed is not bad unless it amounts to wantonly depriving others of a deserved outcome.

 

[Pillager]

Greed is a part of life, and we can't get away from it. It is the driving force behind progress and human development, and the role of the state as I see it is to help defend against some of the negative effects from it, basic worker rights etc.

It's one of those facts of life that we can't eradicate, hence communism doesn't work. It's one of the few things in life that is very simple. For us non-Communists at least

 

[Pillager]

Whoops, dp.

 

[animepornstar]

peronally i would much rather be a person with no greed than a person filled of it. i also think that greed spoils more than it creates and it should be given such much credit for the progress.

 

[amadeus]

This is a very loaded question.

Saying that greed is the want for more wealth is...well, ambition!

Is ambition bad?

 

[Akka]

Bah, saying greed is good is a poor attempt to justify egoism.
Greed is a negative word bringing negative meaning. The fact that it's a very powerful driving force does not diminish it's negativity.
Of course, as it's part of the human nature, it can't be erased. So the best thing is to use it rather than to destroy it. And actually, our society heavily rely on it. Hence the thought "well then it's good".
Still, it does not make it good. Only useful.

Bah, hate is an even more powerful driving force. It does not make it a good thing.

 

[floppa21]

Greed can make one miserable. If any of you have ever been truly greedy at some point in your life, you would agree.

Ambition is a good thing and not necessarily a 'nice' way of saying greed. Ambition is a drive, part of your spirit and will. If greed becomes a part of your spirit, you WILL know the difference.

 

[Hades]

Greed alone can't mount to anything. One has to posses some kind of talents to make greed a successful "virtue". Ayn Rand covered this topic beautifully with her extreme view on promoting the "virtue" of selfishness.

 

[CurtSibling]

As Rmsharpe said,

It is a loaded question.
You would have to look at things on an individual basis.

We all want sucess and financial security...hmm?
That does not make us greedy.

But when you have a great quality of life and then grudge others the same...or want what they have for no reason...that is greed.

And are we just talking money here?

What about greed for food or gratification?

 

[bobgote]

Greed is bad, it's wrong, its a sin.

It's quite clear cut, greed is never ever a good thing.

Ambition is not the same as greed, it's much different. Ambition is neither good nor bad in itself, the results of ambition can be good or bad tho. Greed is bad itself, and the results of it can be nothing but bad.

bad bad bad.

 

[AVN]

As described by several posters it's essential to give a definition, because there is a difference between greed (which IMO) is bad and ambition (again IMO) which is good.

My definition would be :
Greed is the wish to have more of something (goods, money, etc.) regardless for the rights (both legal and morale) of others.

As already said ambition is good, but at a certain moment it turns in greed.

I don't know the CV of the CEO of Enron who created that financial debacle, but I can imagine that he started in a bottom function of a company. He wanted to get better functions (no problem here), but at a certain moment it went wrong. At the moment he was CEO he still wanted more (he became greedy) at the cost of others. In this case employees and shareholders.

Originally posted by animepornstar
i also think that greed spoils more than it creates and it should not be given such much credit for the progress

I have added the not because I think it was your intention.
Otherwise please correct me.

I think your (corrected) statement is true. If we for example look at wars which we have had in the past because emperors wanted to have a bigger country than I'm sure that this greed spoilt more.

Originally posted by Greadius
However, greed is the second great motivating factor. If you can't get someone to do something out of love or self-interest, chances are you won't get them to do it at all.

I prefer to describe this situation in a different, more positive way.
If you need someone to do something then you need to cooperate with him. You need to create a win-win situation. A situation which is profitable for both. I wouldn't call that necessarily greed.

Originally posted by knowltok2
And it isn't just technology and the economy that benefits from people's desire to get ahead. Population's desires to have more security led to the formation of governments, and as much as they are maligned, they beat the old, "Nasty, Brutish, and Short" every day of the week (in sum total). The desire to keep what power and wealth they had lead the American Colonists to break from England. Considering relative tax burdons and protection costs, this can be seen in a greedy light. The same is true with the US Constitution. A document formed to, at core, protect the human and property rights of the people.

Who were the greedy people here ?
The English which raised relative high taxes and protection costs or the American Colonists who considered that to be unfair ?

I think that's something which can be discussed.

Finally I like to quote something funny I found on the web.

How poor are we.

One day a father and his rich family took his young son to a trip to the country with the firm purpose to show how poor people can be. They spent a day and a night at the farm of a very poor family. When they got back from their trip the father asked his son, "How was the trip ?", "Very good, dad." "Did you see how very poor people can be ?" the father asked. "Yeah". "And what did you learn ?". The son answered "I saw we have a dog at home and they have four. We have a pool that reaches to the middle of the garden, they have a creek that has no end. We have imported lamps in the garden, they have the stars. Our patio reaches to the front yard, they have the whole horizon."
When the little boy was finished, his father was speechless.
His son added "Thanks dad for showing me how poor we are".

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by AVN

My definition would be :
Greed is the wish to have more of something (goods, money, etc.) regardless for the rights (both legal and morale) of others.

That's where I think that greed turns into a destructive thing. It's a good working definition though, and one I guess I pretty much use most of the time (i.e. I call anything before that "ambition", but I use the negative term "greed" for situations described in this definition). So Curt, you're right--if we go by THIS definition, then greed is bad.

Problem is, people sometimes use this term when these conditions aren't the case....

As already said ambition is good, but at a certain moment it turns in greed.

I don't know the CV of the CEO of Enron who created that financial debacle, but I can imagine that he started in a bottom function of a company. He wanted to get better functions (no problem here), but at a certain moment it went wrong. At the moment he was CEO he still wanted more (he became greedy) at the cost of others. In this case employees and shareholders.

Not only greed, but dishonesty. Real greed often requires this other sin to enable it.

I prefer to describe this situation in a different, more positive way.
If you need someone to do something then you need to cooperate with him. You need to create a win-win situation. A situation which is profitable for both. I wouldn't call that necessarily greed.

And capitalism works this way. It may be MORE profitable for one side than the other in, say, an employment contract, but both sides do benefit--and if the benefits aren't enough for the one side, he can look for better and often find it.

Who were the greedy people here ?
The English which raised relative high taxes and protection costs or the American Colonists who considered that to be unfair ?

I think that's something which can be discussed.

The idea that they were being taxed without a voice in Parliament was a legitimate protest for the colonists--it would be for anyone. Greed may have played a role in the motives of some colonists involved, but the act of protest against a tax you didn't (through even a representative) "consent" to isn't itself an issue of greed, IMHO.

Finally I like to quote something funny I found on the web.

It's funny, but there's a bit of truth to it. I.e. I'M not "rich" by any sense of the word (at least as is relative in THIS country, I guess I am compared to many others around the world), and in some ways I'd prefer not to be--at least, I don't want the pressures of running a corporation, the lifestyle and appearances that the rich often feel they have to maintain, etc. It's like in the Navy, when I felt it was better (for me) to be an enlisted man than an officer. There's give-and-take in anything, or any choice, and frankly I'm quite comfortable enjoying the simpler pleasures most of the time. I think some of the rich tend to lose track of these things, to their loss....

[/B]

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by AVN
The English which raised relative high taxes and protection costs or the American Colonists who considered that to be unfair ?

I thought that their taxes were not very high at all. Wasn't it like the lowest in the empire?

 

[CornMaster]

Isn't Greed a sin?

So all of you that said you like it are dirty, dirty sinners.

I think it's bad. Greed is the bad side of ambition, but ambition in it's own isn't bad. EXPECIALLY if it's ambition for one's race instead of one's self.