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.
I just lost a thoughtful response. I'll try to reproduce it.
I don't think evolution is or should be an explanation for behavior in itself. My point I didn't clarify was that greed/selfishness could serve a net positive (I'm most aligned with utilitarian philosophies). I think it is possible that allowing the pursuit of greed could benefit society more than it hurt it. Depending on the evaluators' values, those benefits/costs could look very different.
I'd be willing to change my mind if the Milton Freedoms and Thomas Sowells are wrong. But I haven't heard or seen the convincing counter arguments or the conflicting data. How has Bezos and Gates not contributed to a better world? Progress does not mean every person always is doing better. Some groups, like small business, might dip and fall off. That's okay if it's because the people choose to value Amazon over small business. It shouldn't be because government or centralized people decide.
I'm not 100% free market, but when in doubt or unsure, let the people decide.
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.
Anyway, I've been pushing back against your ideas when I probably agree more with you than then other commenters. I agree with your original idea, wealth is not and should not be the primary measure of success in society.
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.
I just lost a thoughtful response. I'll try to reproduce it.
I don't think evolution is or should be an explanation for behavior in itself. My point I didn't clarify was that greed/selfishness could serve a net positive (I'm most aligned with utilitarian philosophies). I think it is possible that allowing the pursuit of greed could benefit society more than it hurt it. Depending on the evaluators' values, those benefits/costs could look very different.
I'd be willing to change my mind if the Milton Freedoms and Thomas Sowells are wrong. But I haven't heard or seen the convincing counter arguments or the conflicting data. How has Bezos and Gates not contributed to a better world? Progress does not mean every person always is doing better. Some groups, like small business, might dip and fall off. That's okay if it's because the people choose to value Amazon over small business. It shouldn't be because government or centralized people decide.
I'm not 100% free market, but when in doubt or unsure, let the people decide.
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.
Isn't relativism a counter Enlightenment idea?
Anyway, I've been pushing back against your ideas when I probably agree more with you than then other commenters. I agree with your original idea, wealth is not and should not be the primary measure of success in society.