Thread: What's wrong with 'greed'? Why is it a bad thing?

Originally Posted by FreshAir

Example, Banks are supposed to make money loaning out our money, but they are getting greedy and gambling our money


.

It's quite laughable to say something like that. Banks invest, and the riskier the investment is, the more banks usually get in return. And there is not fine line between "loaning to a promising venture" and "gambling".

Or shall we say, banks gamble all the time. You can't call a bad investment "gamble" while call a profit-turning deal "a loan".

Originally Posted by Daybreaker

I disagree. Money is no different than intellect, physical prowess, artistic talent, or any other resource. You can use it for benevolent purposes or you can use it for selfish purposes.

Define "benevolent purposes" and "selfish purposes"?

If a starving man sacrificed himself and gave the only piece of bread to another starving man, would that be "benevolent "? If a starving man kept and consumed the bread and let the other guy die, would that be "selfish "?

If that is the case, then dare no man live on this earth?

A college graduate paid all his bills, loan and saved 10 grand, then he decided to move to a better apartment but wait, isn't that selfish? Come to think of it, there are numerous children in Africa who truly are dying of hunger, why can't he just keep sharing the apartment with another guy, and donate all the 10 grand to the charity?

Banks are supposed to loan your money. It's how they function. The problem is that banks and wall street purposely put together loans, such as mortgages, that are designed to fail. They make money allow the people they loan to to make as many payments as they can and then foreclose. They then give another person a loan on the foreclosed property and do the same thing again.

If we had government officials that would arrest these scumbags for their crimes, the hoousing crisis would have never happened, and the bailouts would have nevered happened.

Originally Posted by Iolo

The word you want is 'covet'. To be obsessed with stuff is to be to be too primitive to begin to know what the world's major religions are about, a mere animal responding to stimulus, who seems to have forgotten that all he'll do in the finish is die. Why should anyone care?

Bravo! I'd ask some similar question:

Why bother inventing jet engine when you already have piston ones? Come to think of it, why bother inventing plane at all when you already have automobiles and steam boats? Then again, why do you need mechanical transport while you already have horses and mule?

At last, why bother moving at all if you can be self-sufficient? Or, even you are unable to sustain yourself, consider the fact that you will die anyway, why bother living in the first place, if at all?

I thought the crown jewel of human spirit is to put up a fight, to struggle before went down, to reach futilely for where we believe "heaven" is?

Originally Posted by septimine

Well, there's a difference between greed and simply enjoying the fruits of one's labor. It's really a question of whether you're cheating the system to get yours. If you work hard to get something, I'm cool. If you're doing something that cheats, that's not cool. And actually, the most greedy people are the ones that never do anything other than try to make rules for other people. You want greedy, find the guy who creates more welfare for the express purpose of creating an underclass to vote him to higher office.

Quite excellent summary, I'll say.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Nope. If you think that, why have an opinion on anything?

^This is the same question I ask them.

Personally, I believe in moral absolutes. But every time I bring this up, people on the left always insist that morality is a subjective concept that's all just a matter of opinion and that's why "it's wrong to push your morals on other people."

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Nope.We can easily deduce an objective standard of morality by simply universalizing our interests. Our most basic interest is in being alive, so we can easily see we ought to help others do the same and subject our lesser interests, like buying a suit, to that end.

Ah, I see. So how much do you subject your own lesser interests to help those with less than you? I can't help but notice that you're on a computer right now.

Originally Posted by Unifier

^This is the same question I ask them.

Personally, I believe in moral absolutes. But every time I bring this up, people on the left always insist that morality is a subjective concept that's all just a matter of opinion and that's why "it's wrong to push your morals on other people."

I'm certain you and I aren't the only people who've noticed this.. and enjoy the dripping irony...

I've leveled more than a few scathing criticisms at the progressive left's "morality is subjective" argument...
by using their very common "business owners have a moral obligation to the collective" sentiment against them.

They, it seems, are quite unapologetic in their desires to have it both ways.

Originally Posted by webrockk

I'm certain you and I aren't the only people who've noticed this.. and enjoy the dripping irony...

I've leveled more than a few scathing criticisms at the progressive left's "morality is subjective" argument...
by using their very common "business owners have a moral obligation to the collective" sentiment against them.

They, it seems, are quite unapologetic in their desires to have it both ways.

Definitely. Time and time again I have posed the simple question, "Why must society follow your version of morality if morality is subjective?" And they never seem to have an answer for it. They just get angry.

Originally Posted by Unifier

But wait a minute. Isn't morality relative? Doesn't it vary from one person to the next? So who's to say that spending that money on a suit is immoral? Isn't that just a matter of opinion?

Morality is relative as far as what can be imposed upon a society. My "morality" is based off of the Gospels narratives. It tells me that the love of money is the root of all evil and that it is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God because money obstructs the compassionate outreach to the poor, sick, orphans, etc. In my morality based system a man like Mitt Romney who has an elevator in one of his gazillion homes is immoral because there are still poor people on this earth.

Is my morality absolute? Is it yours--do you feel the same as me?

My morality would not allow a woman to have an abortion because it is the destruction of life and a breaking of the sacred hoop of motherhood.

Do you feel the same?

I have learned to accept that a free society enables people to stand on their own morals, make their own choices and live with them. I live my life according to my own code and want no other man's morals placed upon me.

Originally Posted by Zosiasmom

Morality is relative as far as what can be imposed upon a society. My "morality" is based off of the Gospels narratives. It tells me that the love of money is the root of all evil and that it is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God because money obstructs the compassionate outreach to the poor, sick, orphans, etc. In my morality based system a man like Mitt Romney who has an elevator in one of his gazillion homes is immoral because there are still poor people on this earth.

Is my morality absolute? Is it yours--do you feel the same as me?

My morality would not allow a woman to have an abortion because it is the destruction of life and a breaking of the sacred hoop of motherhood.

Do you feel the same?

I have learned to accept that a free society enables people to stand on their own morals, make their own choices and live with them. I live my life according to my own code and want no other man's morals placed upon me.

Good points. I whole heartedly agree. I think religion is a good guide book for morality.

Greed is basically wanting to profit as much as possible without a thought of how it adversely affects others. Like the CEO raking in millions of dollars in bonuses while his workers are laid off without compensation because the company is just not doing well enough. If you are talking about the candidates, I would say Romney's career at Bain is a perfect example of greed. He walked away with huge profits even as he destroyed the companies he acquired along with the loves of many of the people hired there.