According to the Webster Dictionary, greed is “an excessiveness of desire for wealth or gain”. However I believe that Webster left this definition incomplete. Perhaps if we change the definition to “an excessiveness of desire for wealth or gain for ones self” then we can see more of the true meaning. Greed has been with us since the beginning of time. The Roman-Catholic Church was (and still is) always greedy for money. However if the Queen of Spain hadn’t been greedy for cheaper goods, more land, and more gold, Columbus may have never discovered the Americas. Greed is a never-ending cycle. Once you’re in it, it may be impossible to get out, for your excessiveness of desire for yourself will just keep growing. If you look at greed as a tool and if you use it right, it will make you as a person, groups of cultures, and nations of societies grow to new unexplored territories, as Columbus did. However, if you abuse this tool, the darkness will show. It will bring out the most of evil in people and in nations.
Without greed, America may not be as strong as we are today. America thrives on greed. Look at Wallstreet. The very foundation of Wallstreet contains greed. Everyone needs money for himself or herself, but it’s their excessiveness of desire that makes their checkbook grow. As a Nation this can be a very good thing. A Nation drives in more money, buys bigger better weapons, and expands the growth of their economy. All for the good if the country it’s self. To other countries, this is a frightening thing. So they to will inherit the tool of greed and they will either learn how to use it correctly or helplessly lose control and will fail to get out of a viscous cycle. Once they lose control, they’ll make mistakes.
A good example would be the Gulf War in 1991. With greed as their engine, Iraq drove into Kuwait, with attempts to take over the Persian Gulf, and take control of all the oil. However, Iraq’s greed wasn’t strong enough to counter the altruism of the United States and ended up with a little less then they started out with. In retaliation Saddam Hussein took on a selfish act of lighting up 300 oil wells because he couldn’t have the oil. The abuse of greed can clearly be seen here. This is a good way not to use the ‘tool’ of greed.
Everywhere you look there is greed. Lets take corporate America for example. People and organizations such as Martha Stewart, Authur Anderson, Adelphia, Enron, and WorldCom, all have the exact same problem. Greed. They were caught in the whirlpool of evil and selfishness. Their excessiveness of desire became more excessive then they could handle. Their selfishness led corruption and ultimately caused going out of business, with nothing to save them. Greed was abused here and the consequences where heavy. No matter how perfect people such as Martha Stewart seem to appear, their greediness will show right through their transparent image and open up the true appearance. These are the consequences greed can have not just on a single person but organizations as well.
But greed isn’t just all evil. Princess Diana had a special kind of greed, a greed for others. She helped clear land mines out of urban neighborhoods, and made the Red Cross a stronger organization. For this type of greed, she was looked upon as a truly good person. There wasn’t anything bad, people could really say about her because her greed, her excessive desire for gain or welfare for other people appeared through her and people could see who she truly was. Nations also have this character. America, again, is a good example. We have used the gain and wealth that we have acquired by our greedy citizens to help the starving and the poor, in desperate times. We brought grain over to the refugees in Afghanistan. We challenged Adid, in the battle of Mogadishu because he was seizing all the food coming into Somalia. These are all examples how greed can lead to an unselfishness act.
Greed is everywhere we go. We can see it in anyone and anything. It can lead to good or bad. Greed can cause wars, but also help nations in trouble. The evil abuse it. They use it to kill and ravage. The good cherish it. They use it to grow and prosper. Greed can affect the lives of anyone, anywhere. We have to thank greed for the good it has brought, and look down upon the evil it has stirred. There is a never-ending battle and social scientists are still puzzled by the effects in both directions. Greed makes the world turn. Without it nothing would grow. Greed is a necessity and in a Darwinian Society, everyone must posses some sort of greed. It’s up to you on how you use it.
I don’t think greed is bad.
Mother Theresa, without a doubt is one of the greatest women that ever lived. She was motivaed by selflessness (as close as is possible) and the desire to do good for others. On the other hand Bill Gates the richest man that has ever existed. He is motivated by pure selfishness and the desire to create wealth from himself.
Bill Gates, who was motivated by selfishness created thousands of jobs for his employees, in inadvertently created thousands of others. He created software that revolutionized home computing and made software that was affordable to the common family. In turn he made billions. Mother Theresa by her charity and selflessness helped hundreds. She visited hundreds of poor villages and countries and helped the poor. Her work has inspired several hundred other nuns to carry out her work. Inadvertently she will have helped thousands.
Bill Gates? Capitalist who is motivated by selfish motives.
Mother Theresa? Philanthropist who was motivated by selfless motives.
Who did more for the world?
We call people who are philanthropist’s great people because they help society, however we call people who are motivated by self-interest (selfishness, greed) and inadvertently help society scoundrels.
id rather be mother theresa
I think the word “greed” is used out of context in the part where it is said Princes diana has greed to help others. sounds a little off to me. Greed like u said is gain for oneself. How is helping others greed, rather it should be care, and givingness.
-Jeff
You can try to euphemize or rationalize the term “greedy capitalists” anyway you’d like, but in the end’ they’re still greedy motherfuckers who are going to rot in hell for their voracious lust. You may say, Bill Gates has the greatest amount of wealth, but in the end, what will his legacy amount to? A buggy system that can’t even run without rebooting every 23 hrs. Mother Theresa, a humanitarian who had a profound effect upon the impoverished and downtrodden. We call people who are motivated by self interest and greed scoundrels because thats why they are. While they do create jobs for thousands, they still fuck over the thousands who are crushed by these big monopolistic corporations. Oh whoopdee do Bill Gates gave John Doe a desk job, but don’t forget because of him, child labor in third world co untries such as Thailand are still a booming industry.
Andy, Would the world be better of in any way if Microsoft didn’t exists? Would those abused children in Thailand be any better off? If they would, then why are they working there still?
On a different note, you say that Windows is nothing except buggy software? Any idea on how many lines of code there are there.
Honestly, Microsoft being there has an enormous reason for those children. I understand what your saying, that those children in poverty would remain in poverty one way or another. But at least while in their poverty they could still build mud castles freely. With corporations such as Microsoft creating opportunties for children to be enslaved, now kids instead of mud casltes are assembling computer parts which right now are in your computer so you can run your “Food for Thought”. Step into the real word Ashu, your part of the hypocrisy. Free yourself. Go run wild with the gazellee, butt naked.
So its Microsoft’s fault that they are creating opportunities for the kids? Those kids now even thought its may be cruel, have a way to feed themselves at least for that day.
Its besided the point, but Microsoft has no plants in Thailand. Microsoft is a software company and I doubt the kids you descibe, would be coding your Windows XP.
So basically your saying any big corporation using kids is good? Dude, I don’t mind that they’re creating job, thats how you run a capitalistic society and stimulate thee economy, but we should not tread on innocents just so Bill Gates can add 2 millino to his enormous bank account.
Don’t try to ratinalize the exploitatino of children in anyway… No matter what way you look at it theres no benefits. Ashu…you know who Mr. Fair is? He had that kind of “use children mindset” look what happened to him.
Firstly, the analogy of Gates and Fair doesn’t work. Brilliant billionaires who revolutionize the world and child molesters don’t have a lot in common.
I’m not saying that the whole system is fully ethical, but it definitely is a win-win situation. It’s easy to sit back from it and disregard the fact that the kids have jobs because of big corporations. Imagine being that kid, and if a law was passed saying that Corporate America can’t use child labor the kid would have no job, thus no food, thus he would starve. Name one way how the kids would be better if corporations didn’t hire them.
Ashu, you know that segment in Zoolander. Where Mugatu brainwashes Derek Zoolander. “Malaysian Prime Minister BAD, child labor laws BAD, child labor GOOoodd!!” You’re mentality is like Mugatu right now and its scaring me. Does a foamy latte get you all farty and bloaty?
No andy, I dont. Never seen Zoolander.
I understand what your saying, kids working and not starving is better than starving. But remmbeer the first issue GREED. GREED is an endless cycle which continues, and because exceptions are continually made, unethical boundaries are continually broken. Decadence and morals have continually decline. And Ashu just because you don’t hear about Microsoft or any othe rmajor coporation exploiting third world countries doesn’t mean it doesn’t occur. You think the media tells you everything? Basically people get fucked over, and life can be viewed as one big hierarchical triangle, so we might as well enjoy our time at the top. But DON’T admire someone such as Bill Gates, for “creating thousands of jobs for children who would are better off now because they work hours from 7-7.” Callous statements and mindsets like that are very irrational and narrowminded. Expand your mind and place yourself in their position. Your livin in a cozy home, wiht a warm belly from a meal your dad just provided. Maybe Bill Gates instead of exploiting these children, could move his factories inside United States, and donate some more of his millions to global charities [which I know he already does]. But you know why Bill Gates doesn’t or any other big clothing/machine, coporation doesn’t build their factories in US?, Becuase they’re fucking greedy and don’t wanna pay the taxes. Thu sthe cycle of coporate exploitation and greed. I know your trying to support the whole “capitlastic mindset” which I agree with. Yes, greed can be viewed as positive, but I just don’t believe in Bill Gates gratuioutsly trampling on institutions and people pwho don’t need to be trampled on.
I’ve been out of town the past couple weeks thus the delayed response.
The baby relation: Why should the baby share the toy with others? Why in our head is sharing a virtue? The toy belongs to the baby and the baby can do what he wants with it as he wants. A baby who keeps his toy and refuses to share is just as morally correct as a baby who shares his toy with all.
Basically your point of view is that humans are inherently evil creatures (‘Original Sin’, from the Bible, I presume) and you believe that even though communism doesn’t work, its moral. You believe everyone working to the best of their capacity should be paid equally, regardless of how much they produce.
Take a buffoon and take a genius. GIVE them both equal opportunities. The buffoon will do nothing while the genius will make massive amounts of wealth. Money is a product of a man’s capacity to think. Only a person, who does not need it, is fit to inherit money- the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it.
Money can not be used as a criterion for rational capability, even theoretically. The fact that the wealthiest individuals in the world are, for the most part, not geniuses debunks any assumed correlation between intelligence and wealth. The Sultan of Brunei? Take away his oil (which was clearly not a product of his intellect) and he is nothing. Donald Trump? Please, that guy thrives off of business success, which I don’t equate with intelligence. Business is the interaction of humans, governed by personality, which is subjectively appreciated. Doing well in business, and hence making money, depends on how well you convey confidence, knowledge, ability-not always just the objective statistics of profit margins.
But also, let us not forget inheritance, which Adam Smith himself hates. Inheritance is the basis of much financial success (and political success too). A wealthy child will ascend the corporate ladder with the assistance of all the social contacts his father made. Does the child deserve the money he inherits? I make a generalization here that is sure to offend the children of many wealthy parents, but many of those children do not inherit the admirable characteristics needed to succeed. I really doubt that Bill Ford the 7th or whatever is a competent businessman, or that the numerous Fords who antedated him were either. It is almost like a monarchy. Power flows from ruler to heir, regardless of ability. Money does the same thing. Money cannot match an incompetent mind? Maybe so, but at the point where money elevates an incompentent buffoon over an impoverished genius can disrupt this idealistic paradigm. Opportunity is the key here, and it goes to the wealthy heir. The wealthy buffoon heir starts ahead of the rest of the field, and is running unencumbered while the less fortunate must run with their legs bound by lack of opportunity.
Theoretically, even if we lived in a perfect worly where these capitalistic flaws were ironed out, intellectualism will not always be rewarded with wealth. The greatest scientists and researchers-were they well-paid? Would they be well-paid in this perfect world? The answer is no. Their services are much less tangible than those of the merchants. Do you need relativity to live? No. But you do need food, a car, a house-all the vital needs will be addressed first. Refer to Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Self-actualization, which I roughly equate with the intangible pursuits, has little direct importance. So, as we can see today, the intellectual giants of humanity live their lives in relative financial mediocrity, never raking in huge piles of cash for their efforts.
If greed were good, then why is it that after we do acts of altruism, like volunteering or stopping to help someone who we don’t even know, why do we feel good? Perhaps this is someone’s way of teaching us that selflessness is a virtue. Even if human nature leads us to evil a lot, we were made to desire good since we feel better after doing good.
Well, I admit that the example I used was a bad one. But of course there is always sometime in your life when you are forced to do a selfless act not out of your will, but because another person (I implied parents) forced you to do so, because they knew it was good. And then maybe after the years pass by, you realize that it truly was, a good deed.
Er, I apologize if some of my discussion gets off topic, my cable has been down the last 3 days, and there is hydrogen peroxide in my eye (it hurts, can’t read clearly)
As for the cliche I used. Even for me, who abhors cliches and would avoid using them ever, I would have to admit that cliche’s do have a meaning. They are words of wisdom that has been passed down for as long as anyone can remember, and has been used in stories, books, and everywhere in life, therefore it must have some truth behind it. “Money is the root of all evil”, I would say that 99% of all evils today are centered around money, wealth, and the fame to generate more money.
Yes, if you ask me that inventions created by man are considered evil, then I wholeheartedly agree. I believe the natural state of man is to be evil. From the beginning of youth we already see the possessiveness of a greedy baby that doesn’t want to share his toys with others. I agree that money is a tool, but it is not necessary to survive. Obviously at some point in time, man has survived without money. In fact, a form of currency was considered advanced in ancient times
I am not sure what you are trying to state in your 4th paragraph is, but if you are asking that I have a wallet with money in it, yes, I do. My argument is not that of a man who works to receive money to buy his bread (which in a sense I’m saying money=bread) The system works yes, but it is the intentions of man on receiving that money that bothers all of us. There are such thing as necessity, and wants. Some men will kill for necessity, most men will kill for want, neither are justified, but if I had to have a choice to pick, I would believe the man striving to feed his family is somewhat justified. The difference is, greed is not involved. I know most likely this argument could be countered by going to the basics of the definition of “Greed”. But what I am speakng of this unnecessary greed that is spoken of in corporations and businesses.
Actually, I believe that wealth is come across people who arrived at the right place, at the right time. You will try and argue this by comparing to some hardworking immigrant who came to America and built his path to success. But that is because he was GIVEN the chance to come to America, he was GIVEN the chance to come at a time when the American Dream has become a reality. But you look at someone who was born in the streets, parents killed, no where to go, no hope to live. If the streets is all they will ever know, then how can we brand these people fools? How can we accuse them of being incompetent, when all their focus is is surviving until the next day? A man invents because he is given the products, a man invents because he has the the physical as well as the social capablit. A man also invents because he has taken the opportunity to himself. There is no doubt that in many points in history, a man has lied or cheated in some way to place himself in a state of opportunity. It is very presumptious to assume that every man who invents, has honest intentions. Perhaps the person has the capability to invent only because he has carried out the malicious deeds in order to do so?
The only reason why these other “looter” countries implanted such slanderous ideas in our minds is because they are the only people that really SEE what its like to be looted from our own country! Surely we do not steal from ourselves! Surely the government does not allow for us to use cheap child labor (Because we don’t let them!) Listen to yourselves, child labor is good? The decision of children working is up to the family I agree, but what choice do they have? The families only intention is so that the child may bring home enough food for their family to survive for one day, but the BUSINESS’s only intention is to find a way for CHEAP labor through DISPOSABLE workers! These are people who risk life and limb everyday to keep their families alive! At LEAST they should have the decency to pay them an adequate wage! But instead make them make up for loss in money in hours! I do not know how you can justify such an evil as this. The sheer greediness is so obvious its ridiculous!
I know I may be a hypocrite in this article. I who am typing away at a computer with online cable and the works. But when it comes down to it, I want more, I will always want more, and that is the curse that I must deal with from the taste of an industrialized country. Everyone here cannot doubt that they wish someday to be a millionare, living at some expensive resort without a care in the world. Not caring what family they caused to go without bread, how their products are harming people (except to the dip in their stocks) or how they even came across their wealth. But compare yourself to another family outside of America, who wish just to live for one more day, for one more hour, for bread in their mouths, and nothing else. Condemn these people, call them lazy, inept, incompetent. Sit on your thrones, and bicker about the good of money that is so familiar to us. But do you not see? Men are already the tools of other men because of greed! As long as greed exists it will always be this way. The greed for money, the greed for land, the greed for control of the world. You cannot limit the basis of greed on the existence of money only, you have to look around and look behind the intentions of every bad deed. The greed I am speaking of is not only for money, but the greed for that seduces a man to kill, the greed that causes men to enslave, the greed for a man to steal, the greed for possession of your neighbors wife… its all there if you really look. Let me remind you that men are broken down to carry out any deed as long as it means that they will live to see another sunrise.
Therefore I stronlgy disagree, as long as people do not realize that money is the root that is driving all men to evil, then it will eventually lead to our own destruction. You look at the selfishness and greed that surrounds us, you wonder why there is war, you wonder why there is grief, you wonder what is ever going to become of this world. Well, the answer is there, if you take the blindfold off your eyes. It is because of greed that there is war, it is because of greed that there is grief, and it is because of greed my friends, that evil continues to exist in the world.
The world is on a rollercoaster to destruction, and you say that the axis that the world rotates around is for the good of the people. Step outside your cozy homes friends, for evil is outside your door.
-Chris
Mind as in a business mind. The most intelligent minds that have no business sense will be poor and remain poor. Half of it is having ideas, which make money and the other half making money with those ideas. The scientist never had the second half.
Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue, which was the fortune.
But business sense is the product of fraud, of showmanship, of likability. Making money is great, but what is it but servitude to necessity? Businessmen are slaves to the often petty demands of the human race. The scientist is far more deserving of respect-he answers to something greater than the oppressively pragmatic concerns of the businessmen. And let me remind you that business focuses on the second part of “intelligence,” the one that deals with profitability, than innovation. For example, why are we driving cars with ancient combustion engines and not investing in better technology? Why is research almost categorically limited to universities, not businesses? Why has space exploration become stagnant? Science and progress are stalled yet again by the superficiality of business. Progress does not always bring profit-robotics creates unemployment-but we seem too afraid to abandon our security blanket of financial success. Remember, you are assuming that money is desired by all. Why is it that most of Man’s greatest minds (and I mean minds in the purest sense, not just business minds) are motivated by something else than money? Limit your values to necessity and you limit your potential.
And on another note, I am not endorsing an equitable redistribution of wealth, assuming that the wealth was legitimately acquired. What I am challenging is the accountability of inheritance. True capitalists like Smith understand that inheritance violates the most fundamental premise of capitalism, that you get what you deserve (i.e. if you are better than someone else, you get more than the other person). Can you really say that others can do no better than the worthless heir? Even if we accept that huge assumption, does that justify this injustice? Obviously, there do exist those who are more capable than a worthless heir, but they don’t have the opportunity to utilize the wealth. And if an idiot inherits money, but did nothing but be born to get it, how is that just? To get money, you must be able-that is accountability.
Only a person who does not need the inheritance is fit to inherit it. Inheritance should be a gift from parents to deserving children that don’t need it. Simply by assuming that you could have done better with the inheritance is saying that you are not worthy of it. Fit to inherit does not mean equally well off, but means having the potential to serve the wealth.
Business sense is making money not because you need it, but because you can do more than what you have already done. Its always being happy with what you have but never being satisfied.
I think you’re missing the point of an inheritance, Ashu. The purpose is not some award to people, like some sort of extra “bonus”, but rather a passing on of a deceased person’s belongings. Granted, it would be wrong for a lazy son to live off of inheritance alone, but think for a moment: it’s a choice made by the deceased to pass on their possessions to anyone they choose; it’s called a will. You can’t just assume that only successful people should deserve this “free meal”; it’s up to the writer of the will to decide whether one is deserving of an inheritance, not you or the government.
I’m not advocating that anyone has a right to decide if someone if fit to inherit wealth. Its up to the person that writing the will. My statement was that one should not envy a person who inherits money, who in thier eyes is worthless.
I know it appears to be repeating, but unless you can give a SINGLE way in which the kids would be better if the corporations didn’t use them as labor you can’t say that Greed is bad.
Greed is providing a job for a person who would otherwise starve.
And saying that Bill Gates is creating thousands of jobs for children who would are better off now because they work hours from 7-7, is a perfectly correct statement, unless you can provide a reason why it is detrimental to the children. From my perspective, the only argument that you can make is that dying is better than working 7-7. If that is so, well then corporations are bad. If living while working under horrifying conditions is more valuable then dying thru starvation, then you have no argument.
Finally, I want to know where you are getting your information. Unless you have different methods of getting information, you and me get our ideas from the same media.
Well, instead of the word “greed,” I would substitute the term “rational self-interest.” By rational self-interest, I connote that what each man rationally works for, is for the food on his plate- for his own personal self-interest.
People who exercise rational self-interest are not evil, and I agree with you on that idea, Ashu – that Bill Gates has done more for the world. However, our society today is a faulty one that misses the big picture (Gates) for what is closer to one’s heart (Teresa). This is not to say that Teresa was by any means a lesser human being, however she was less influential.
In my opinion, we need to change the WORLD, not merely a group of people, like Mother Teresa did. Every single human being on this planet should be benefitted by our contribution.
Greed is one of the seven deadly sins if i’m not mistaken…
And why are big corporations moving factories out of America? Your reason was perfectly correct. They are greedy bastards who care for nothing but their own profit. If they can avoid paying taxes and get cheap labor the will.
Still doesn’t mean that their Greed is causing any harm to the laborers they employ. Their greed is inadvertently helping millions.
If it were up to me, I would rewrite the Bible to make greed a virtue.
Ashu, I’m wrong. Sorry your absolutely right. It is ok to put kids up for those kind of hours. But please, open your mind. I mean what’s the name of this forum. Food for thought.
Greed is providing a job for a person who would otherwise starve.
That is not greed. That is exploitation. We both know this.
Neil I agree, with your definition. But my definition of Greed is of “over indulgence” or the attitude “money over morals” are ideals which I don’t agree with. Each decade we see a little bit of our humanity being chipped away by “greedy” corporations. It’s just a matter of time before we realize to what extent our greed will bring us to our demise. Case and point. Rome, was once a great Empire, expanding across continents. However it’s greed and corruption eventually lead to its collapse. The United States or any nation, if it wishes to continue its longevity, should take heed and restrain its capitalistic gluttony.
Andy to start off, you still haven’t answer my question.
If it weren’t greed to make money, why would the corporations move their factories out there? They don’t enjoy learning a new language, or having to ship the finished material. They do it because they are GREEDY, and want to maximize their profits. That’s why those kids even have a job. Because the corporations are greedy sons of bitches that don’t give a rats ass about anything else then their own profits.
I’ll agree with Andy on this one. Life Jef said, the way Matt used the word greed is grossly out of context. In my experience (and I’m sure you too), I’ve always been raised with the belief that greed is an evil that people are forever cursed with. I have good reason to believe so too. It is the selfless benevolent acts that are lauded in the world BECAUSE they have no interest in any gain let alone wealth, and this is truly something that should be commended. It is a natural impulse in the society that we grow up in to see everything we do as some kind of benefit or reason for us. For that reason selfless deeds are acts against human nature. To think of spending our time and efforts towards something that will be of no benefit to us is something entirely unthinkable nowadays. I have reason to believe that selfless morals only exist because of a tradition passed from generations. We must not forget that while greed provides a job for a person that would otherwise starve, greed is also the reason that many other people starve. Because of that, Greed is not a trait of America that should be commended. This cut-throat capitalistic society IS the reason why we are so powerful, and GREED is the center that capitalism revolves around, which America in turn, revolves around as well. If you look back, you will see that America is only the most powerful nation it is today because it has broken treaties, stabbed backs, crippled whole nations, and nearly exterminated a whole race of people. Greed was the primary motive for all these actions. I agree that yes, it was better off this way and yes we are helping other nations and people with our wealth, but to what cost? It almost seems that America’s good motives are almost as if it is paying alms for sins of the past. America represents many things. Courage, honor, bravery, loyalty. But out of all things, the one evil that America will always be a symbol of, is Greed. I’m sure that most of you sitting at home right now, and typing away at the computer have benefitted somehow from greed. Obiously if you live in America, you HAVE benefitted from greed. That is the ironic thing about greed though, while someone in the world will benefit from it, thousands of others are getting screwed. It is truly a win-lose situation.
-Chris
Businesses and people will always love to create new products, fire people, move locations, avoid taxes, and use cheaper labor, if it either will save them money or create profits for them. That is greed that is good. If money is made by ways such as government favors (the way Sun, Netscape tried with Microsoft), by murder, or fraud (WorldCom, Martha Stewart), and you call that greed then it is bad greed.
There is no such thing as a true altruist, or selflessness. Everyone’s actions are based on their own personal interests. People who do things “for” other people are doing so because the very act of doing it makes them happy or satisfied. If you do not value the anticipated result, you wouldn’t do it. If you try helping others and you don’t feel good about doing it or value it, you won’t continue to do it.
Our society has always said that personal ambition is bad. “It’s only okay to make money if you give it away.” Capitalism is not only does it work, but also it is moral and building wealth is not only okay, but it is good. It is human nature to act selfishly and there is nothing wrong with that.
Heh, you’ve never heard of people with “True” Selfless motives? What about the time the last time your mom made you take out the trash? Your definition of true altruism is having no satisfaction in the result. But how about for things like that? Doing things out of necessity because someone else knows it to be morally correct? I’m sure when you were little your mother forced you to do something totally selfless and unmeaningful to you, yet in her wiser years, she knows that it is morally correct. There you have committed an unselfish act without satisfaction towards the result, but probably resented doing it as well. Most people will find that many selfless acts will require sacrafice in their part, therefore most of the times a person will resent an unselfish act, but will do so anyways because they know it is right. Satisfaction is only a side effect that sometimes (but not all the time) comes with a selfless act fact. Remember, most people who live in America are ungrateful to their lifestyles.
I still don’t understand your argument about greed being good? Speaking from a romantic point of view, isnt money the reason why the world is so messed up? How does it go… “Money is the root of all evil” was it? A well known cliche to society, and for a reason. Your argument is that as long as companies reaches their ends through “legit” (finding ways to cheat the law an violating human rights are far from legit) ways, then their greed is justified with their ultimate motive, and that is to expand and create products. But let me remind you, that money is their ultimate motive, and money has been known to twist many a good man to the “dark side” if you will. Yes, creating products for others would be a noble cause, especially if everyone benefitted from its job offers and its contribution to economy. But throw a little money into the equation and the whole idea is shot. The companies motive is not to create products or to invent mind blowing technology to offer to the public. Their motives are purely money, and only money.
There have been many philanthropist institutions whose primary motive was to help people, but soon become twisted by the money factor. An example are hospitals. Hospitals nowadays are considered to be more of a business rather than an institution that exists to easy human suffering. Did you know that Doctor’s are required to take the Hippocratic Oath? The Hippocratic Oath is a solemn covenant that calls upon the the doctor to cure and ease human suffering with any expense. It is an understanding that the priveledge of knowledge has been passed down to doctors as a gift, and should be practiced accordingly in the same fashion. It is almost like distributing the wealth that has been given to them. Now this is truly a noble cause. Selfless, unselfish, however you want to name it, the primary motive that medicine was supposed to be based off of was to help others. Now how would most people describe medicine nowadays? All of the people that I have talked with, (and most of them doctors) would describe medicine as a BUSINESS. Out of pure selfish motives, these now money driven instituitions now only care for one thing, and that is profit. How many times have you heard of a person dying somewhere just because they could not pay for the surgery required to keep them alive? Now we are talking about surgery, a method to keep a human being alive. And these doctors actually have the audacity to say no to a dying man’s face just because he was probably screwed over by the company that he used to work for refuses to pay for his insurance because he didn’t qualify enough. Now thats another story. Another philanthrapist instituition mutilated because of money. That’s capitalism for us folks.
-Chris
Altruism is when you do something willingly and have selfless motives. My mother forcing me to take out the trash is neither willing and also it is not selfless. I live in the same house and I don’t want my house to start smelling, if garbage sits there for months and decays.
Money is not the root of all evil. That’s just an over used clique that people use to blame others for whatever problems they have. Its useless. I’m shamelessly quoting from my favorite author, but if I put it in my own words I’d screw up the meaning.
—-
Ayn Rand on Money:
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Aconia.
“Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor — your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions — and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made — before it can be looted or mooched — made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.
…
If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose- because it contains all the others–the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.
Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide- as, I think, he will.
Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns- or dollars. Take your choice- there is no other- and your time is running out.”
—-
Read the full version
You think you’re altruistic? Why don’t you take $100 bills and drop them in the middle of a crowed bus. Someone is bound to gain from your loss. Why do you keep your wallet close to you? But then again why do you donate to Church or your Temple? Because it makes you feel good and gives you satisfaction, which could not be attained by dropping $100 bills in a crowed bus. When you gain something in return your action is no longer one of altruism.
I agree with you for that companies do things that create money for them. That’s their only goal. Why should they give a rat’s ass about you and me? They only motive is money and they damn the public good. They are correct. What “noble cause” do you speak of? The public good? What did you or me do to deserve a single cent of thier profit?
I dont want anyone confused here with this article supporting that greed is a good thing. The point I wanted to make with this article is that greed can been seen in both, in a positive view and a negative view. It seems to me that greed is somewhat a double edge sword. Greed is a good quality to have for motivation, but when it gets obsessed and you have bad motives – that when greed turns ugly.
Greed drives people in both positive and negative ways. The world has a negative connotation to it, but the definition just says “excessive want over something” which isnt that bad at all. What results of greed is another issue.
Nothing comes free in this world. From the air that we breathe to the land that we walk on. Everyone has to work sooner or later. The kids in “Thailand” that work in sweatshops are doing nothing but there jobs. Maybe they’ve been forced into entering the work world sooner than others, but dont we all have to work sooner of later? Would this kid really be better off playing in the mud building mud castles while his family dies from starvation. People need to live, either its picking up a petty little penny from the floor or working for a “greedy money hungry baffoon”; it’s there means of survival. Just think for a moment, without these companies sure the kids could run free and screw around… but for how long? Reality catches up to them, the truth of the matter is, they need money to survive in this world. And where are they gonna get it? Well Im sure from the sky, cause we all know money just rains down. The only reason why they work for sweatshops is there are NO better job open for them. Lets face it, there is little to no education in such a impoverished rural area. When you live in those conditions, you keep your hands on what you can grab onto, even if it is a measly penny they pay for the hour. Which one of us can speak for those poor beatdown kids, can you? I know i cant. Why dont you ask them. They might be extremely thankful for what they have, its foreigners like us that LOOK DOWN on them, thinking they are the victims, cause our living conditions supersede them. So whether is making money in a sweatshop or working in a noodle stand.
Who are we to speak for them?
-Jeff