[daydreamer]

what's your definition of greed, and is it good, bad, indifferent, or in between?

[bugfrag]

greed
• (noun) intense and selfish desire for food, wealth, or power.
*Oxford dictionary

The word "selfish" implies that it's bad.
I'll stick with that.

[Tyrant Soup]

Greed is when one's acquisition desires becomes detrimental to their personal relationships.

Since the concept of good and bad is only relevant in the context of personal relationships, greed is bad.

[Nomadofthehills]

Everyone is greedy, it is a matter of controlling it to successfully"fit in" with society.

[amberlinen]

In industrial and commercial world greed is what keeps the system running.

But from a personal growth point of view, it's nothing but a carrot hanging on your forehead to keep you working until death.

But then again, if you don't have any real motivation or goals for life, keep working till death is not a bad way to spend your life.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by Nomadofthehills To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Everyone is greedy, it is a matter of controlling it to successfully"fit in" with society.

I seriously don't think I have a shred of greed in me...


Greed is necessary, in the sense that you can't have good without evil. Were there no greedy bastards in this world, there would be a heck of a lot of people in the non-profit sector with nothing to do...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It energizes the fighting spirit of a lot of people, and gets them involved in fighting injustice (which greed ultimately prizes)

As far as moving the markets and such... to a point it's understandable to think you need greedy people to drive it. But I think that common sense, more than greed drives markets more effectively. It's sensible to want to earn a lot.... Greed on the other hand, tends to dampen the market and eliminate competition and innovation (when the greedy are in control).


I wouldn't begrudge a rich person just because they are rich. However, I would judge them on whether they had hurt others to get there.

[Tyrant Soup]

I think people are confusing self interest with greed. The former is natural and desirable. The latter crosses the line of social acceptance. The term "greedy" is never used to describe a person in a positive manner.

[une fille]

	Originally Posted by daydreamer
	greed - what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing...say it again!

You can't tell me NOBODY else thought of the "War" song.. C'mon.
Theoretically, (IMO) greed occurs when one is willing to hurt or sacrifice others in order to gain. However, greed is actually relative.. Some would say I'm being greedy by sitting in my air conditioned room on a laptop while people are out there suffering, starving, and dying.

[somethingboring]

	Originally Posted by Nomadofthehills To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Everyone is greedy, it is a matter of controlling it to successfully"fit in" with society.

I agree and would like to add that without greed, there might be less competition (it does act as a good motivator), which would be bad for everyone. Necessary evil, maybe?

[Freedom Geek]

Greed is simply wanting more than you need and currently have. In low amounts it's fine, after all who doesn't want something that they don't need? In medium amounts it's still fine because it will make the person work harder and contribute more to society for it. In high amounts is where the problem exists, when you are willing to use coercive force, fraud, lobbying for government subsidies, ect is when it becomes harmful.

[sujit]

Greed can be controlled in ways necessary for the self.
But sometimes it really hurts when two greeds cross each other.

[nacht]

Greed means making
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in hopes of finding a global optimum. ~_^

	Originally Posted by Tyrant Soup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think people are confusing self interest with greed. The former is natural and desirable. The latter crosses the line of social acceptance. The term "greedy" is never used to describe a person in a positive manner.

I don't think that they are "confusing" them. You have defined greed in such a way that it is always negative by definition, but that isn't how everyone defines greed.

The basic definition of greed is "intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food" (New Oxford American Dictionary). There is nothing in this definition regarding "personal relationships." In fact, I cannot find any definition outside of yours that defines greed in such a way, though I see quite a few that slip it in as an implication of the previous definition.

"Greed" has degrees, just like many things. There can be "principled greed" and "unprincipled greed" in the same way you can have "rational self interest" and "irrational self interest." David Kelley of the Objectivist Center writes:

	But [Ayn Rand] was no advocate of greed, at least not in the sense that Mr. Greenspan seems to have meant in speaking of ''infectious greed'': the pursuit of wealth as an end in itself, without regard for achievement. Indeed, she wrote with scathing insight about such unprincipled, dishonest, manipulative behavior.

This is, of course, speaking of the same Ayn Rand who argued for greed so passionately through her life.

Clearly we must distinguish between forms of greed and cannot paint with quite so broad of a brush.

[zibber]

As a socialist, I think greed is terrible. It's so counterproductive, really, fueling this nonethical rat-race towards higher efficiency and higher profits that ultimately leaves 99 out of 100 people in the shits. I'm sure there's a dozen evolutionary arguments for greed, but I think it's time to move beyond that out-for-self phase and put the emphasis on its almost polar opposite, compassion.

	Originally Posted by une fille To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can't tell me NOBODY else thought of the "War" song.. C'mon.

As I was reading your post, I came to the realization that I'd been whistling that tune since opening the thread
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


After typing the first bit of my post, though, it switched to Hendrix' "We gotta live together". How appropriate..

[nacht]

Greed is most emphatically not "those traits of the human condition I do not like."

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm sure there's a dozen evolutionary arguments for greed, but I think it's time to move beyond that out-for-self phase and put the emphasis on its almost polar opposite, compassion.

Why do you believe the opposite of greed is compassion?

Greed is wholly compatible with compassion, what it is not compatible with is altruism (in the strict sense of self sacrifice for no benefit), which is a separate beast entirely. See, for example, "enlightened self interest."

[ercaras]

Ummmm... here...

Greedy
- Corrupt politician. Owns acres of land, no legit business other than being a politician. Family buys what they want, many servants, many cars, big house, or perhanps a mansion or so. Gambles a lot. Expensive lifestle. A loving father and loving husband. Is he greedy?


Normal person (or at least that's how people call themselves)
- works for at least 8 hours a day. Turns on air conditioning system as soon as he gets home. Prepares 12" round pizza for himself only. Single, never committed a crime, never stole anything, never took advantage of anything. Never thought of hungry people on the third world countries while gobbling up his tasty pizza. All he knows is that he's tired and hungry, and he works hard so he can have great food such as pizza. Is he greedy?

[Ool]

	Originally Posted by daydreamer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	what's your definition of greed, and is it good, bad, indifferent, or in between?

Do we even deal in terms such as “good” or “bad?”

Oh, right, this is a forum of J’s, so of course you do.

Basically greed is an exaggeration of the hoarding instinct—hoarding resources, power, control. It can be a good thing to have plenty of surplus available in case the unforeseen happens, such as a force majeur disaster or a sudden competitive situation with another individual sharing your niche in life. This is the viewpoint from which the instinct of greed is good.

It is, however, bad from the viewpoint of the other individual, who is in danger of being out-competed and deprived of vital resources by the greedy party. It can also be bad for the greedy individual themselves in all types of prisoner’s dilemma situations, in which many greedy individuals can sabotage each other and lead to a suboptimal outcome, compared to one of trust and cooperation.


Basically greed is good in situations where acquisition activity leads to a long-term, sustainable improvement of living conditions all around, such as an environment of plenty of resources, where taking possession of something doesn’t mean you’re taking it away from someone else. It is bad for at least one and possibly all parties in situations where resources are limited and zero-sum-game rules are in place, meaning more for me means less for you and vice versa…

[walden]

The History Channel has some great programs on the seven deadly sins. The episode on greed in particular is awesome.

I think greediness is the worst attribute a person can have. Desiring what you don't need is not only illogical but it is cruel because realistically there is no situation where all other people have their bare necessities covered.

[Tyrant Soup]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think that they are "confusing" them. You have defined greed in such a way that it is always negative by definition, but that isn't how everyone defines greed.

Your dictionary definitions does not coincide with the common usage of the word. It always have negative connotations when used. The only exception is when unrepentantly greedy bastards try to whitewash the word.

Do any of the following statements sound positive to you?

CEO Joe is a very greedy man.

Greedy corporations.

Your son has grown up to be very greedy young man.

Your actions are motivated by greed!

[daydreamer]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The basic definition of greed is "intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food" (New Oxford American Dictionary). There is nothing in this definition regarding "personal relationships."

your definition includes the word selfish... selfish cannot be defined without being relative to others, implying that greedy is a description that cannot function independent of relationships with others:

selfish 1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>





daydreamer added to this post, 11 minutes and 26 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by une fille To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Absolutely nothing...say it again!

kinda belies my personal opinion, doesn't it ?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[nacht]

Originally Posted by daydreamer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

your definition includes the word selfish... selfish cannot be defined without being relative to others, implying that greedy is a description that cannot function independent of relationships with others: selfish 1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

Or, alternatively, "concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure "

Ethical Egoism
Enlightened Self Interest

"Selfish" is not a dirty word.

[daydreamer]

i googled "concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure" and the full definition was:

"concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure at the expense of consideration for others."


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


you're entitled to your point of view, of course, and you're not alone in it. but it does seem that you're guilty of an error of omission.

[Rudy]

The reason, I think, that there is disagreement on the meaning of the word "greed", is that it tries to cover too broad a range.

Self-interest I will take to mean being motivated by your own well-being. Your material goods, your happiness, your income, your status, etc. Most people will agree that a certain amount of this is healthy; indeed, that not having any is unhealthy!

When we come to an "excessive" amount of self-interest, that completely disregards empathy and concern for others, then most people regard it as a negative trait. We generally refer to this as selfish, or sometimes greedy.

The problem is there is no good word for a reasonable amount of self-interest. This is partially why Objectivism (which I do not follow, but which does influence my philosophy,) expanded the word selfish to just mean being concerned with self-interest. As long as there is no good word in general usage, people will try and stretch existing words, like greed, to cover this gap.

[nacht]

Originally Posted by daydreamer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i googled "concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure" and the full definition was: "concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure at the expense of consideration for others." To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. you're entitled to your point of view, of course, and you're not alone in it. but it does seem that you're guilty of an error of omission.

Not an error of omission except that I omitted my source, assuming people would know I was referring to the same source I quoted before. I quoted my source accurately:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
where I used the second part of the definition which is, without embellishment:

concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure

As
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:

Anyone who practices psychotherapy almost certainly knows how frightened many people are of even the most appropriate acts of self-assertiveness — they do not know how to answer the charge that they are being selfish. How many people die in insane wars because they do not want to admit that they care more about their own lives than about some abstract cause that may make no sense to them? How many people give up their dreams and aspirations in deference to the needs and demands of others because they dread the charge of being egocentric? This is an open secret: almost everyone knows it and almost no one talks about it. Instead, we go on insisting that ego is the cause of all our misery.

[daydreamer]

	Originally Posted by RudyHenkel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The problem is there is no good word for a reasonable amount of self-interest. This is partially why Objectivism (which I do not follow, but which does influence my philosophy,) expanded the word selfish to just mean being concerned with self-interest. As long as there is no good word in general usage, people will try and stretch existing words, like greed, to cover this gap.

excellent and reasonable. i think it's common for a lot of issues/arguments to occur over inadequate expressions/words for complex or newer concepts. i would only add that i think the misuse of words is dangerous immediately and causally/historically. imo it's important to take the time to understand and explain a valid position.

----
nacht, i'm unable to access an online version of the new oxford american dictionary so i guess i will have to take your word for it. i can't help but be curious as to what the "first part" of the definition is though.

as far as the writings of nathaniel branden: i find little disagreeable with the excerpt you used. for one, he is arguing about self-assertiveness, which i believe is different than selfishness. secondly, the quote is part of a larger work arguing against the morality or ethics of selflessness - not the same thing as arguing for selfishness.

the issue i do have is that in the excerpt he makes use of himself as an expert, and argues factoids on the basis of anecdotes from his experience: although interesting, that alone doesn't hold a lot of water with me when it comes to an argument. i don't believe an expert just because he calls himself an expert. indeed, my experience of listening to people about why they have made this or that choice is completely different than his, particularly the reason he gives for why people go to and die in war.

i think it's fine that you have your opinions and i was asking because i am genuinely curious as to what they are, but i see nothing compelling about your proof or argument. although its my opinion that the words "greed" and "selfish" indicate negative connotations, i do agree that objectivism and like positions have value, though for me it's mainly as ideological/philosophical reference/counterpoint.

[Zer0]

Talking about facts, not judging right and wrong.
I would put it in 2 words..
"need" and "greed"

Everybody have "needs" it's common and natural.
But when it grows too much it'll become "greed" that's when it's off-balance and upset the neutrality.
Then it will have impact on both you and the social you live in.

Now this "impact" is what we can derive "right or wrong" from.