I probably should have elaborated on what I meant by “basic needs” (which I think is different from what the Bernie crowd has in mind). While there is a material component whose provision can involve the state, there’s also a psycho/social/spiritual component that the state can’t directly provide but can only foster via the promotion of a culture that respects and encourages the establishment of intermediary institutions (family, religious establishments, voluntary associations, etc) that act as conduits for the transmission of culture and direct the education and character formation of individuals (as well as serving as checks on both the power of the state and of the individual).
The welfare recipient who lives off the state and whose dependency nurtures a sense of entitlement is the low-status corollary of the ultra-wealthy citizen who amasses a fortune with few, if any, limits and without any sense of obligation to the greater good. Neither is bound by strictures that compel pro-social behaviors (taking responsibility for oneself and/or others and not living merely for one’s own self-gratification) or attitudes that accord with dignified living (gratitude, generosity). Greed, being a vice, can never be good. While a desire for fortune often does play a role in spurring innovation and entrepreneurship, there are usually other motivations as well, and in any event, there is no reason to think that greed does spur those things, as it’s very often the case that greedy individuals will just sit on their money and find the easiest ways to make it grow (hence the increasingly distorting economic effects of the rentier class). The reason you should be concerned about inequality is because passed a certain point, society will become so unstable that the have-nots (and this is particularly the case if a significant portion of those people are young males) may lash out. As in, a way that is not peaceful.
While I can agree totally with everything up to "Greed". I believe a certain amount to greed necessary to encourage work, innovation, etc. and to encourage the desire to hold on to & protect what has been attained. Miserliness is what I call your definition of greed. Tomato/tomato. I wonder if much of this angst over "inequality" or "inequity" is reinforced and heightened by those who espouse identity/victimhood ideologies in the Press or on social media, but are never actually affected by their "solutions". Today the emphasis seems to be decrying what the "have-nots" don't have and not how to get what they don't have.
It's definitely reinforced & heightened by people with those ideologies. But I'm not sure the proper response is to continue reinforcing the alternative (i.e. work to conform oneself to a system that holds that obtaining material wealth and/or status is the measure of well-being), especially when those things may not actually be achievable for a great many people. I think we need to put a greater emphasis on embracing values whose benefits can't easily be calculated (at least in material terms).
There is a reason greed is one of the cardinal sins. And practically everyone will agree greed is bad. But do people have the right to be greedy or selfish?
I don't see how people could have a right to be greedy or selfish, just like I don't think people have a right to be careless or lazy or any other negative tendency. Just because we can't (and, generally speaking, shouldn't) use the state to police or punish all the various negative tendencies that people have, it doesn't mean that we can't nurture a culture that discourages people to not act on those tendencies or have policies that disincentivize (and in some cases make illegal) behaviors that are motivated by them (e.g. monopolies).
What if evolution naturally selected x amount of greediness because it provided the best fitness.
Bazos and Gates (I don't know their bios well, but it's safe to say they can't be the two of the richest humans without greed) allow everyone to be richer. Most of the poorest Americans today are among the riches humans in human history.
I wouldn't equate all technological advances to greed, but greed and selfishness have positives for society. You can't produce excessive wealth (minus stealing and cheating) without giving people something they need or want.
It seems pretty clear that there are evolutionary advantages to all sorts of tendencies, both positive and negative. But for any society to properly function there has to be a more or less coherent set of principles that [most] everyone accepts as well as a recognition that there are limits re: the sorts of activities and behaviors one might want to engage in if the society is to remain cohesive and not implode.
I don’t think a desire for material gain is a bad tendency, however. The problem is when people think that there are no or should be no limits. And as for the examples you give, I’m not sure how much we should attribute the success of people like Gates and Bezos to their being greedy; the pareto principle suggests that greed may not actually play much of a role in the process of an individual amassing great wealth. But if the desire for material gain or power is left unchecked (and I think that is what’s critical), it becomes avarice, and as with any other vice, it will consume the person and end up damaging others.
The question of greed aside, technological advances & the even the benefit of next-day convenience that Amazon has blessed us with can undoubtedly be viewed as social goods, but even with innovations that have a great many positives for society, there are also negative downstream effects (people living increasingly atomized lives, collapse of businesses that can't compete with Amazon, etc), that we need to recognize and in doing so should make us more circumspect in considering how great those things really are.
We were heading more or less in that direction until the "Mommie" state, multiculturalism and identity politics got in the way. Who decides what are the negative tendencies and the level to which they need regulating? Oh yea, rule of law based on Western Values! We do have laws and policies that discourage excess in many areas, but you can't regulate away human nature. Despite the "Enlightenment", some things don't change.
Your're right - you can't regulate away human nature, which is why it's so important to have a culture that discourages people to act on their worst impulses and which makes living virtuous lives actually appealing. So much of popular culture works against this. One of the offshoots of Enlightenment thought was relativism which is to blame for a great deal of the disordered thinking that results in significant portions of the population acting in ways that go against their own self-interest and/or harm other people.
I probably should have elaborated on what I meant by “basic needs” (which I think is different from what the Bernie crowd has in mind). While there is a material component whose provision can involve the state, there’s also a psycho/social/spiritual component that the state can’t directly provide but can only foster via the promotion of a culture that respects and encourages the establishment of intermediary institutions (family, religious establishments, voluntary associations, etc) that act as conduits for the transmission of culture and direct the education and character formation of individuals (as well as serving as checks on both the power of the state and of the individual).
The welfare recipient who lives off the state and whose dependency nurtures a sense of entitlement is the low-status corollary of the ultra-wealthy citizen who amasses a fortune with few, if any, limits and without any sense of obligation to the greater good. Neither is bound by strictures that compel pro-social behaviors (taking responsibility for oneself and/or others and not living merely for one’s own self-gratification) or attitudes that accord with dignified living (gratitude, generosity). Greed, being a vice, can never be good. While a desire for fortune often does play a role in spurring innovation and entrepreneurship, there are usually other motivations as well, and in any event, there is no reason to think that greed does spur those things, as it’s very often the case that greedy individuals will just sit on their money and find the easiest ways to make it grow (hence the increasingly distorting economic effects of the rentier class). The reason you should be concerned about inequality is because passed a certain point, society will become so unstable that the have-nots (and this is particularly the case if a significant portion of those people are young males) may lash out. As in, a way that is not peaceful.
While I can agree totally with everything up to "Greed". I believe a certain amount to greed necessary to encourage work, innovation, etc. and to encourage the desire to hold on to & protect what has been attained. Miserliness is what I call your definition of greed. Tomato/tomato. I wonder if much of this angst over "inequality" or "inequity" is reinforced and heightened by those who espouse identity/victimhood ideologies in the Press or on social media, but are never actually affected by their "solutions". Today the emphasis seems to be decrying what the "have-nots" don't have and not how to get what they don't have.
It's definitely reinforced & heightened by people with those ideologies. But I'm not sure the proper response is to continue reinforcing the alternative (i.e. work to conform oneself to a system that holds that obtaining material wealth and/or status is the measure of well-being), especially when those things may not actually be achievable for a great many people. I think we need to put a greater emphasis on embracing values whose benefits can't easily be calculated (at least in material terms).
Thank you for your responses.
LG, is your problem with greed the selfishness?
There is a reason greed is one of the cardinal sins. And practically everyone will agree greed is bad. But do people have the right to be greedy or selfish?
I don't see how people could have a right to be greedy or selfish, just like I don't think people have a right to be careless or lazy or any other negative tendency. Just because we can't (and, generally speaking, shouldn't) use the state to police or punish all the various negative tendencies that people have, it doesn't mean that we can't nurture a culture that discourages people to not act on those tendencies or have policies that disincentivize (and in some cases make illegal) behaviors that are motivated by them (e.g. monopolies).
What if evolution naturally selected x amount of greediness because it provided the best fitness.
Bazos and Gates (I don't know their bios well, but it's safe to say they can't be the two of the richest humans without greed) allow everyone to be richer. Most of the poorest Americans today are among the riches humans in human history.
I wouldn't equate all technological advances to greed, but greed and selfishness have positives for society. You can't produce excessive wealth (minus stealing and cheating) without giving people something they need or want.
It seems pretty clear that there are evolutionary advantages to all sorts of tendencies, both positive and negative. But for any society to properly function there has to be a more or less coherent set of principles that [most] everyone accepts as well as a recognition that there are limits re: the sorts of activities and behaviors one might want to engage in if the society is to remain cohesive and not implode.
I don’t think a desire for material gain is a bad tendency, however. The problem is when people think that there are no or should be no limits. And as for the examples you give, I’m not sure how much we should attribute the success of people like Gates and Bezos to their being greedy; the pareto principle suggests that greed may not actually play much of a role in the process of an individual amassing great wealth. But if the desire for material gain or power is left unchecked (and I think that is what’s critical), it becomes avarice, and as with any other vice, it will consume the person and end up damaging others.
The question of greed aside, technological advances & the even the benefit of next-day convenience that Amazon has blessed us with can undoubtedly be viewed as social goods, but even with innovations that have a great many positives for society, there are also negative downstream effects (people living increasingly atomized lives, collapse of businesses that can't compete with Amazon, etc), that we need to recognize and in doing so should make us more circumspect in considering how great those things really are.
We were heading more or less in that direction until the "Mommie" state, multiculturalism and identity politics got in the way. Who decides what are the negative tendencies and the level to which they need regulating? Oh yea, rule of law based on Western Values! We do have laws and policies that discourage excess in many areas, but you can't regulate away human nature. Despite the "Enlightenment", some things don't change.
Your're right - you can't regulate away human nature, which is why it's so important to have a culture that discourages people to act on their worst impulses and which makes living virtuous lives actually appealing. So much of popular culture works against this. One of the offshoots of Enlightenment thought was relativism which is to blame for a great deal of the disordered thinking that results in significant portions of the population acting in ways that go against their own self-interest and/or harm other people.