Greed

Why are people so greedy? Greed is such a large problem in society today. Look around at all of the people that seem to care more about their personal finances than anything else, including their own moral values. There are greedy people everywhere that are putting more cash into their own pockets at the expense of others. Take for example, the Enron scandal, and all of the stories you hear about people suing large corporations because of their own stupidity.

Enron stole money from its own shareholders by cheating the stock market. The company reported its earnings as higher than they actually were, causing the price of their stocks to go up so that the company gained more money each time someone bought a share of Enron’s seemingly stable and promising company. When the scandal was exposed, and the executives in the company were found to be criminals, they cost their shareholders millions of dollars, and almost ran their company into the ground.

There is an increasing number of stupid and ridiculous lawsuits going on all across the United States. Smokers sue tobacco companies, obese people sue fast food restaurants, and people even go as far as suing hit television shows for stealing their name. Is it not the smoker’s own fault for smoking? Is it not the obese person’s job to watch their eating habits and exercise? Did Bob Croft not change his name to Jack boat before suing MTV’s hit show “jackass”? Why do these people want to place the blame unfairly on others and get something out of it? If they would accept responsibility for their own mistakes and condition, none of these problems would occur. It is out of utter selfishness that people press charges against these corporations. Does it make the smoker and the obese person feel more powerful because they can win a legal battle when they cannot win one against their own addictions? Does it make them feel better because they feel like the blame is lifted off of their shoulders, or is it because the big fat check they receive from the lawsuit makes them happy temporarily, covering up the feelings of guilt and stupidity?

Why has money suddenly become so much more important than everything else? Why is money more important than fellow human beings, and one’s own sense of morality?

Greed only serves to hurt everyone involved. Enron’s dishonest practice was revealed to the world, the company and their shareholders ended up losing large sums of money. Enron hurt itself as well as others. The obese person that wins a lawsuit against McDonalds soon acquires a mindset of “Why do I need to get healthy if being unhealthy gets me money?” and soon loses any motivation he or she had to change his or her habits. The smoker inadvertently harms the environment because the tobacco company has to increase productivity to make up for the money lost in the case, which requires farmers to grow more tobacco, which requires more land that is gained by deforestation. The person that sues a television show for stealing his name only wastes the time of lawyers, judges, and defendants, while making himself look like his own last name. Greed hurts the greedy, as well as the others around that person. Why does this senselessness continue? Do we not see that it gains us nothing? Money and other material things are not the most important things in life, and should not be treated as such.

----
I wrote it as a short essay for english class, and I think it is very true. tell me what you think. (I know I over-generalized the situation with Enron, but that's okay.)

PS - don't give me corrections, it's only a rough draft

I agree with you but I can't say I don't like money and I know that our civilization has become based on money and everything.




Yay! another person who thinks this is stupid and such. I'm skinny so I wouldn't know what goes through there mind but I think it is dumb.

Very well written Dantrag.. And I agree with every point there..

Hehe, but you do know that tobacco farming is still one of North Carolinas biggest industry's? I shiver to wonder what would happen if we lost it...

Anyways, I don't think the greed on this level is new... I mean everyone has been greedy in the past.. All the way from the Eqyptains of the First Dynasty to you and me.. I just think with more people and more ways of communication and scandal that we are finally feeling the error of our past and continuing descrepancy's

Channler I was about to say the same thing. Greed exists in the fundamental idea that if you can have more, you should get more. That alone is not bad, it becomes greed when suddenly it's at the expense of others. It's not just money, but power in general.

Here's an example. When a nomadic people were moved to settlements by the government to try and live in a civilization back in the 1990s (I saw it on National Geographic) one woman from the tribe made a task for herself of accumulating blankets. Blankets were suddenly a very precious commidity in their community, and because she owned all the blankets she suddenly had all the power. This was something unheard of to nomadic tribes like this one. The reason is because Hunter/Gatherer people have no room in their society for greed, it would crumble if one took advantage of the others. They have to practice cooperation and mutualism if they want to be able to survive the winter.

As humans have evolved from Hunter/Gatherer to Hunter/Grower to Farmers and keepers of livestock and so on, they've occupied different niches in nature. We can see now as ape societies evolve (or are changed by God if you want) that they have started exercizing greed as well. In certain chimpanzee societies it has been recorded they they have started hunting monkeys, something they never did two hundred year ago. They don't require monkey meat in their diet. All the nutrients an ape needs is found in insects and plants. The meat has become a social tool, and the act of giving your monkey meat to another chimp has become, basically, like lobbying. When needed, who's the chimp more likely to help? The chimp that gave him meat or the one that didn't?

So, as humans occupy new niches, the need for cooperation is sort of slackened, at least for survival of the individual and their family. At the same time, humans were evolved (or made by God) as a cooperative species. That, in my opinion, is why it's like this. A cooperative species that no longer needs to practice cooperation for survival of the indivdual and the family is bound to corrupt.

What many humans do not realize is that we need to exercize cooperation for the survival of the community. There just happens to be so many humans that put themselves before community that it's not happening. Take political science's lables of two idealists, the liberalists and the realists. This has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives, by the way. Liberalists believe in cooperation, that everyone can work together and help each other out. Realists believe that they need to help their own country out and work toward benefiting their own country, even at the expense of of other countries. Liberalism sounds better, it sounds like the future of mankind where everyone can prosper. I find that when you believe in this, realists take advantage, so really our political system is dog-eat-dog and there's very little room for cooperation. It will always be like that until cooperation is necessary for survival of the individual.

I agree with you there Doomed about the liberalist and the realists...

Though I still wouldn't push for to much of a unified society untill the world absolutely needs it.

Some would argue it needs it now, but I tend to disagree because this unified society would have to be ruled by similiar means to the U.S. or more dictatoral means such as Cuba... (I just pulled those two types out of my head)

(I don't want to start a UN discussion...)

But the U.N. is neither, while countries might vote still much bickering and lack of action go on... At least there not dictators..

The U.N. is an inter-governmental institution, it's job is not to make all governments one, but I would like to see that institutionalized, sort of like the EU, but it would have to include every nation.

I'm for it, but I'm against it at the same time...

I'm not sure why though, I guess I'm scared of one singularly large government. It seems that it would be more ooppresive then any of us would imagine.

But I don't think the worlds population is large enough for that type of government.

BTW I still have a bit of Nationalistic ideals in me..

Well yeah, funnily enough I figured out the difference between the right-wing and left wing actually. Right wing considers themselves ctizens of the US first, and the world second, and vice versa for Left-wingers. I mean, I don't really have a whole lot of nationalistic loyalities, at least compared to how strongly I feel humanitarianly. That might be why I think it's more urgent, because I feel for how people are being treated in other countries, or I consider a lot of the evidence of enivronmental damage and wonder why certain countries don't seem to care.

There are many things that would have to be done for an intergovernmental union.

1. Every single nation would have to be included. UN was founded on the basis of the winner of WW2 uniting to stop future threats like that, it doesn't fit the right purpose. Just like how many environmental laws would be slackened by the US, many humanitarian laws would probably be slackened by other countries that we would deem undeserving of being in the union.

2. Every nation needs to fulfill it's role to step in when a government breaks an environmental or humanitarian law that they all agreed al previously.

Simple as this ...over time money has become our god thank the government

What is your reasoning behind this?You didn't really explain yourself at all.

I mean, the basis of capitalism is greed, but I would say that it's better than the socialist or communist economy, it just needs more structure. And the government doesn't tell you to make money your god. it's human nature to be greedy whether we like it or not.

I'd prefer socialism to capitalism because on a brpader scale socialism has been more successful. Anyway, the logc is flawed nonetheless. The government and money did not create greed. Money has been favored before capitalism existed, people have wanted more since they could start accumulating possesions.

both are flawed, but there really isn't a perfect system.

Socialist ecnomy leaves no room for any sort of improvement because everyone is equal. Nobody has anywhere to expand. Besides that, I like the government to be in my business as little as possible.

I mean, if I haven't done anything against the law, or been reasonably suspected to have broken the law, there is no reason for the government to be monitoring me in any way.

Socialistic economy's only work in very simple small society's that have little...

Why do you think that the Soviets and other soviet supporters tried to keep their populace out of the wazoo?

By the way, greed is not personal gain.. Greed is personal gain at others expense (bad)

If you read my entire paragraph you'll see I include that.

Soclialism is extremely possible in a large economy, USSR was not keeping their population down to stimuate their economy, they were simply with-holding their goods.

To say a socialism can't work in a large state is to say that in order for a society to thrive a portion of the population has to be have-nots. I disagree, I don't think society requires people to suffer. It think it's a lot harder in a larger economy but then again, I'm not in favor of a pure socialism, more like a combination where people can still start businesses and stuff.

This is unrelated, but are anyof you guys named Brian Zabala or somthing like that. cuz you guys sound a lot like him. (As in knowing what the heck he's talking about and knowing how to oppose a person i such a way so that he can't respond with out opening another channel of disscusion.)

There are a whole lot of people like that.

hmm greed. thanks to greed we have the problem known as the "tragedy of the commons". Really a sad, sad, issue. an item, substance, animal, whatever becomes scarce. Instead of thinking preservation, people instead think "it's worth more now, let me go get some to sell." or "I better get some before there is none left." This of course results in just that, we destroy the resource, usually in an irreplenishable manner.

As for supranational organizations. They are done entirely for gain. The EU is an economical organization. governments are not in anyway united into one. the entire purpose of the EU is to make europe a larger economic power by drawing in wealthy european nations in an effort to increase the overall economical strength of europe. Its becuase of this that the euro was implemented to make a monetary unit that had more power than some nations monetary unit. It is also for the purpose, that the EU is skeptical about allowing the poorer nations into the union, since doing so weakens the euro and overall the system.

It's sort of as if humans transformed from a logistical survival type to an exponential one thanks to greed being allowed to prosper in our society.

One thing to keep in mind is that we humans have certain basic motivations that have made us what we are today. As much as you may curse greed for all its negative effects on others, it has helped raise human beings to be the dominant lifeform on this planet(whether you think that is a good thing or not). Every good virtue that we hold in high esteem also has a mirror image vice that is derived from some fundamental part of what makes us ... us. For example... Greed is basically the darkside of Self-improvement. That desire to become better than what we are... to have our children have it better than we did. To strive to reach a higher goal. All of these are ideals that most desire. Greed is also all of these things in a way. Competition. Is one team in a sporting event being greedy by hogging the ball all the time so that the other team never gets to score?

Just my thoughts... Greed may not be a good thing.. but it is part of what makes us human.

But see greed is not what you say it is.

True greed has harmful affects one someone, how you interpret that is up to you.

But everything has shaped humanity today... Hitler did a good job of it and not many people liked it.

The problem with defining greed is perception.... Which of these scenarios would you consider being greedy...

1) A multi-millionaire can double his money in such a way that no one would be hurt or taken advantage of... is it greedy for him to do so since he has plenty of money already... more than he really needs?

2) A medieval village has stored up a large quantity of grain for the coming winter, while the neighboring village's fields were flooded and lost most of its winter stores. The first village could safely hold out the winter without going hungry but the second village will most likey run out of food. Should the first village share its food with the second village at the risk of both starving. If it doesn't is it being greedy, since they will have plenty?

3) You have been waiting in line for 35 minutes at the DMV when you notice a friend 10 people ahead of you who offers you to cut in line. If you do isnt that being greedy since you are benefitting yourself and increasing the wait for those 10 people who will have to wait just a bit longer?

and finally just to press home the point..
4) Its payday and you just cashed your check.. You have $60 left over after paying all your bills. You really really want to go buy that computer game for a few hours of entertainment or maybe go out to the bar with that money... are you being greedy? After all there are many many victims of Katrina who could use that $60 if you donated it to charity.

No one is going to blame you or make you feel guilty for using that money for your own... because almost all of us would do the same.

Greed is not absolute, you can't make a judgement between whether something is greedy or not, but that does not mean greed does not exist just because there is no line. That's not a problem with defining greed either, there is no absolute, it's an aspect to take into consideration when defining anything.

Greed is not an individual trait either, as many other things become involved as well. There is not linear chart between greed and generoisty, therefore I can't mark any answer somewhere between being generous and being greedy. It would generous if the village shared its food, but that does not mean you're being greedy if you refuse.

There is also responsibility to consider. There's this story called "The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula K. La Guin. In it, the narrator describes a world where everyone is happy. Everything is prosperous, everyone is healthy, there are no problems. The dark side of this world however is that there is a solitary, unkept closet in a basement of a random house and at one time for every child growing up on Omelas, they have to visit the child who lives inside. The child is force to live off disgusting food abd sit in its own feces, and the worst possible conditions you can imagine someone to be in. No reason for it, just know, without that child there, Omelas would not be the prosperous place it is.

If you ignore your responsibility to justice for your own gain (note, justice also has no absolute, it is perception as well) then you are being greedy. If you have the power to help someone, then in my opinion, it's your responsibility to help them. You have to pick your battles, yes, but injustice cannot stand. No government nor community can survive off the pillar of human suffering. If you ginore the suffering, you are being greedy. Just so Channler can see what I meant in Parliament so long ago, this is what I believe about responsibility. Bush had the ability to help, and since he didn't, he shares responsibility for what occurred to the victims of certain tragedies he could have prevented.

You cannot solely lay the blame on the President...

You, I, Joe Blow over there is responsible too. Why don't you see that? If Clinton or even that idiot Jimmy Carter were experiencing the same problems (which they would) I wouldn't go after them like many people I see do.

When we need to be united, how come all we can do is argue? What does it matter if one is right or wrong? Work to fix it first!

Channler, I do see that, I don't blame solely Bush. Reread what I said about responsibility. This is not a topic for deciding who's to blame because, as I stated, responsibility is something shared, it's always shared, shared by those that did nothing when they could have done something, shared by those that directly instigated the result, shared by the victims, shared by absolutely everyone. Bush is to blame, he is not the only guy to blame, but he shares responsibility.

Jimmy Carter was a great man who got screwed by his term. Reagen was the idiot.

Hah, I almost laughed when you called Carter a great man... Dillusional is more like it (Hmm did I spell that right?)

I like Reagen because he was a great supporter of the military and a great deal with the downfall of the USSR.. Though we he said we were going to nuke russia that was kinda funny... If illresponsable

Would you vote for me doomed if I ever got to the presidential elections?

No, Reagan made the US a terrorist nation.

Anyway, it's time to get back on topic. Greed. Did you read the short story I posted?