Is Greed Good?

Like a vast number of 'is X good' questions, it depends.

The essence of greed from the quote rings in a similar way to my definition of passion. The only difference between the two is that with greed, man accomplishes something in order to fulfill another goal (ie. acquire money in order to have power) and with passion, man does sometthing out of the love of doing it or getting something directly, that's why I never link passion to money.

Either greed or passion is required to accomplish a goal. Most people lack a true passion, so our source of motivation to keep going is greed. Our greed for life, money or knowledge, moves most of us. By reaction, it also moves the world.

But it depends, since greed can blind people and think that their personal end justifies the means. Greed is good, until the road to get the object(s) of your greed damages oneself or other people.

It's all a matter of defintion. Most people tend to define greed as being the desire to steal. Obviously that is wrong. But Ayn Rand (from whom I assume you take that quote) takes it to mean something else, and in that particular case, it's a good thing.

Edit: My bad, not Ayn Rand. The link wouldn't load.

Re: Is Greed Good?
No. It's wrong. First, because it enslaves you to the object of your greed. Second, because greed excludes solidarity. We are not "monads", you know.
And greed, even for life, becomes an obsessive attitude. Obsession excludes criticism.

Greed is excessive want. That is not really good or bad.

'Good' and 'Bad' are qualitative not quantitative therefore they have no real bearing on the issue of Greed. Good and bad are only an issue when you are talking about whatever the greed is for.

I am greedy for cornchips. Not really good or bad. Who really cares?

I am greedy for human flesh. Pretty bad. Not to mention odd.

I am greedy to help the poor. Sounds good to me.

As far as the actual quote goes, well, I don't like the sentiment much because it uses the little phrase "in all it's forms".

I positively hate absolutism. :wink:

By the way Joe the link doesn't work.

Hmmmm, it works for me. Try this.

Greed != Obcession

Greed != Enslavement

Let's stay on topic here.

The creed of the neocons

The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own.

http://amazon.imdb.com/title/tt0094291/quotes

Well, let's be clear here: the quotation is concerned rather specifically with "greed" as "acquisitiveness." Notions such as "greed for glory" or "greed for doing good works" are purely metaphorical expressions; that's not the "greed" that we're talking about.

Rather, the quotation (taken from the movie "Wall Street" -- sorry if my links aren't working) makes the argument that financial greed -- the desire for acquiring money and other worldly possessions -- is a good thing for society as a whole. This, as rufio has noted, is a keystone concept for the objectivists/Randroids, who contend that selfishness is a virtue. As one of them explained to ABC's John Stossel:

Stossel: Who did more for the world? [url=http://www.bartleby.com/65/mi/Milken-M.html]Michael Milken[/url] or [url=http://www.bartleby.com/65/te/Teresa-M.html]Mother Teresa[/url]? Kelley: Michael Milken. No question. . . . Now, people look at the two and they say, "That's absurd. Mother Teresa was a moral hero and he was a criminal." Because they're looking at motives. Michael Milken didn't suffer. He didn't go into the slums. She went into the slums and she suffered. But I say: What's so good about suffering? I look at the value that people create.

Is that, then, the lesson here? That greed works better than charity? And if greed is good, then shouldn't it be encouraged?

Are the two neccessarily mutually exclusive? Is it impossible to make money for yourself and not help others? Sure, a lot of people will refuse out of spite, but if no one makes anything of value, than there's nothing to help people with.

We are all selfish. If one person gives money to charity he/she would only do it because it would make him/her feel better or because then people would think he/she is a good person (independently from the fact that he/she is or isn't).
Every act we make is directed towards our own advantage, or less disadvantage.

A lot of good comments (e.g., Rufio and JoeFX), but if I may oversimplify a bit, I think greed (as Rufio's obsession) goes beyond the normal egoism of taking care of number one's legitimate needs. Greed is a cancer in human relations because it is insatiable. The greedy are never satisfied, desiring more than what they really need even at the expense of the legiitmate and essential needs of others. And there is one thing about greed that always amazes me: it is so easily justified in the minds of the greedy. We feel guilt for many things but rarely for our greedy desires and actions.

It depends a lot what you mean by greed. Self-interest is a powerful motivator. It's what makes both democracy and capitalism so effective. However, for self-interest to be most effective it has to be informed self-interest and not just short-sighted grasping. Consider the Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma. If both players do what's in their narrow self-interest and defect, both do worse than if they applied a consistent strategy that led to continued cooperation. Similarly, if each member of a team helps the team member who's most in need when they themselves have spare time, instead of just trying to get as far ahead as possible on "their own" stuff, the whole team can be more productive and everybody benefits.

True self-interest has to take into account such game-theoretic and system-level considerations, but in general when you hear the phrase "greed is good" it's likely that they're being ignored. Greed is good only if combined with knowledge and patience.

Platipus pointed out, when people co-operate, they act out of knowledge that honors the existence and needs of the other. But if the co-operation stops short of including most, it is still Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma with slightly larger boundaries. An action that benefits few at the cost of many is still a blind self-interest borne out of narrow minded notion of self-interest that is greed.

Good post JLN. Greed is borne out of such utter discontentment that it is probably more pathetic than hunger itself.

Welcome, Platypus:


An interesting notion, but one that is, in the end, largely unpersuasive. If it is in one's self-interest to take into account the interests of others, then that is simply a recalculation of self-interest, not a redefinition. If I am in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean, I may want to encourage others to join me so that they can help row. If I am clinging to a single piece of wood, I would want to discourage anyone from grabbing hold of it lest we both drown. My self interest is served in either case; it is only the calculation of that interest that differs.

Those kinds of calculations take place all the time, whether or not people view them in game-theoretic terms or take into account system-level considerations. Indeed, as Adam Smith pointed out, capitalism functions quite well despite the fact that no one is working specifically in the interests of the capitalism. Granted, people can, and often do, make unwise decisions based solely on considerations of self interest. The Prisoner's Dilemma, the Stag Hunt, the Game of Chicken -- game theory abounds with examples of self-interested decisionmaking leading to sub-optimal results. But to characterize sub-optimal actions as "bad" actions is a logical leap that needs to be explained, rather than just assumed.

In the initial quotation, greed is considered "good" because greed works on a systemic level. It's not just that being greedy is an optimal choice for the individual, but it's also an optimal choice for society in general. According to this view, greedy people make things, sell things, and increase wealth and welfare throughout society. Undoubtedly, among those greedy people will be people who, on occasion, are led to make bad decisions based upon their greediness, but, on the whole, it is better to let people be independent and greedy rather than outwardly controlled and unwillingly altruistic (as Rand might argue).

JoeFX: Check out this thread.

Of course nobody should be controlled. But it is even better to let people be independent and yet be encouraged to be willingly altruistic by not glorifying greed (narrow minded self-interest) as some sort of virtue.

Nobody needs to be taught self-interest, it is natural and to an extent a legitimate goal, but to glorify greed is to invite exploitation. That is how countries get raided, their resources raped and natives exterminated. Of course the exploiters have more things at the end of it.

Awareness of others' needs is a more important and that can always blend with a more evolved self-interest too.

Greed is An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: "Many... attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed" or An eager desire or longing; greediness; as, a greed of gain.Or a
reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins) [syn: avarice, covetousness, rapacity, avaritia]All human nature.With out greed we would'nt have desire's.We would not have competition between us Human's to be "better" than what we are.And we all would be Equal's.No rich No poor.Then we would still be living in the cave man era.Because every one's cave was the same.Greed makes the world go-round.Breeds such as Sadam and Ben Laden,and Bill Gate's !

Looks like I have some intensive reading to do, thanks for the link joe.

Joe
You say that "in the initial quotation, greed is considered "good" because greed works on a systemic level. It's not just that being greedy is an optimal choice for the individual, but it's also an optimal choice for society in general."

So you think that greed is good because it satisfies individual and general interest.
Then, greed being a tool to reach something else, you should begin by establish what general interest is.