Is THIS being greedy?

[mb121]

I understand that "greed" is necessary for human survival, for in order for man to make any rational decision to advance his life he must first be "greedy" for his own life.

Many people then say:

"Suppose a man wanted cars, books, houses, etc. so much that he was willing to cheat, steal, and bribe his way to them (ie, violate rights)?"

How would I tell someone that living this way is in fact not greedy, since it doesn't advance one's life or happiness?

[y_feldblum]

The you explain how, in so doing, they destroy all that made those very cars, books, and houses possible in the first place and therefore make future such things impossible.

[mb121]

The you explain how, in so doing, they destroy all that made those very cars, books, and houses possible in the first place and therefore make future such things impossible.

I sense that those recieving this answer won't "buy it". They'll then just say "yeah, because they are greedy and don't care about future products - only their own products."

[y_feldblum]

Yeah, it is a problem, if the people you talk to think living range-of-the-moment is ideal and couldn't care less about the whole course of their lives.

[Atlas51184]

"Greed" is a package deal. If you aren't familiar with that concept, see Rand's article on "Extremism" (in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). Basically, greed will group two types of actions together - (1) actions involving dishonesty of various forms, usually cheating or rights violations, to gain values, these types are grouped with (2) honest productive activities.

So consequently you end up with bank robbers being grouped along with businessmen under the same concept because both try to get more money. But there is an essential difference between (1) and (2). One wants the unearned, the other wants to lead a good life, which involves producing value. (1) wants to take what isn't rightfully his, while (2) is being productive.

Because 'greed' is a package deal, we end up running around in circles discussing it. Sometimes greed is good. But sometimes it is bad. When is it good, when is it bad? How do we determine this? (1) and (2) are grouped together as "greedy" because they both want more. But this is just a variant of the "Isn't everyone selfish" line of reasoning. To say that people want more things is to say that their goals are motivated. That is why in his TV show on greed John Stossel ends up asking "Isn't the scientist greedy for knowledge?" Well that just sounds silly. Any time someone works towards a goal he is being greedy.

Paraphrasing Branden from his article in VOS, to say that actions are motivated is a truism. The concept has no valid use. It doesn't give us a better perspective on any activity typically called greedy. It DOES unjustly smear businessmen who honestly work hard to earn their money by linking them with dishonest people who steal and cheat their way to money. The point to make in any argument about greed is that honest productive activity is essentially dissimilar from dishonestly motivated activity, even if they both have the same goal i.e. money.

[RationalBiker]

How would I tell someone that living this way is in fact not greedy, since it doesn't advance one's life or happiness?

There was a previous discussion on here about what greed actually is. I would first nail down an agreement with the person or people you are discussing this with about what they mean by greed. Chances are, they probably think along the lines of "more than one needs". On here, many think of it as "more than one deserves or earns".

If you go with the first concept, how is it they determine that a given person has more than they need? By what standard of "need" are they measuring this greed?

Personally, I think that you are fighing a near impossible battle if they consider the first kind of greed to be a bad thing to begin with. Chances are they think that a person has a moral obligation to give away what he earns if he is more "fortunate" that others. There may be little chance to convince them that morally and legally a person deserves what he earns regardless of whether it's more than he "needs" to sustain some arbitrarily determined level of existence.

Edited December 6, 2006 by RationalBiker

[Nate]

Outside of reading the first chapter of "The Virtue of Selfishness" which outlines the objectivist ethics, you can read here and here. The greed thread mentioned above can be found here.

Edit: links, forgot not to use html... also, topic 5829 appears to be gone now but was still listed in my own personal thread lexicon

Edited December 6, 2006 by Nate

[Bold Standard]

The you explain how, in so doing, they destroy all that made those very cars, books, and houses possible in the first place and therefore make future such things impossible.

That sounds much more Kantian than Objectivist. It would be a legitimate example against Statism--meaning a good argument against legalizing cheating, stealing, bribery, and other rights violations. Because that really would (and does) destroy productivity and make future products impossible. But it's a worthless argument against one man cheating, stealing, and bribing his way to obtaining possesions. The simplest way that I can think of to answer the question is to explain that man must live on principles, and they must be the right principles, if he wants to be truly successful, and lying, stealing, cheating, etc, are not proper prinicples by which to live. Such a person as this would be dependent always on other actually productive people--why not devote his energy towards being productive? For one thing, all of the things you mentioned are illegal. Why shouldn't he make his money legally, and not have to worry about getting caught?

Luckily, there is still a very good lecture from Leonard Peikoff on "Why Should One Act On Principle?" available at the Ayn Rand Institute's registered users page (for free). In order to give someone who's not familiar with Objectivism a simple and concise argument for some specific subject dealt with by Objectivism, I think it's vital to understand it as well as possible, which means studying a lot more material than you would actually use in the arument. I think that lecture is a good place to start (Dr. Peikoff's arguments against Pragmatism in his History of Western Philosophy lecture course are also very helpful).

[Nate]

Luckily, there is still a very good lecture from Leonard Peikoff on "Why Should One Act On Principle?" available at the Ayn Rand Institute's

I second this. That lecture has been up for a while though, so you might want to check it out soon as there is no guarantee it will stay up for free.

[Whoisjohngalt]

I understand that "greed" is necessary for human survival, for in order for man to make any rational decision to advance his life he must first be "greedy" for his own life.

Many people then say:

"Suppose a man wanted cars, books, houses, etc. so much that he was willing to cheat, steal, and bribe his way to them (ie, violate rights)?"

How would I tell someone that living this way is in fact not greedy, since it doesn't advance one's life or happiness?

I don't know if this is relevant, but such a siuation can arise only when a person has no choice but to "cheat, steal, and bribe". This happens only in socialist countries like India, where all this is part of nearly everyone's life.

The concept of freedom in capitalism allows for man's greed, which is necessary for his survival, to be fulfilled. The protectionism in non-free countries requires people to violate rights, as their own rights are being violated anyway.

[Bold Standard]

But it's a worthless argument against one man cheating, stealing, and bribing his way to obtaining possessions.

Reading over this, I realized this sounds a little rude. Just to emphasize what I meant, I was only attempting to criticizing the argument, not the arguer. So nothing personal, y_feldblum. ; )

[Dan@NASA]

Would not the desire for something you haven't earned be the definition of greed? If you steal then you haven't earned it, you've used force against someone.