sakinago
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- 5,320
- 1,632
- 280
- Thread starter
- #61
I don't think that #4 is an overt problem in America, refusing to give it away to others in need. Sure there are some bad apples, but The people of America are the most charitable people there has ever been on the face of this earth, by a mile. No other civilization is able to hold a candle to our charitable nature. Now why is that? Socialism hasn't comparatively been a strong force in America at all. And those on the right do not see the government as the most effective vector to deliver charity. Yes there are places where it is needed, but simply throwing more money at a government that is intent on growing itself, that doesn't have a NEED to become the most effective vessel and deliverer of charity, is not the answer. Not only is it not the answer, but it also gives government a powerful bargaining chip to continue to grow itself, with or without the peoples best interest in mind.I think there is another factor besides greed not being said. That factor is power, power in the sense you can tip the scales in your favor. In capitalism this should not happen, and is one of the main things to guard against . In socialism those scales are already being tipped by nature. In respects to capitalism and socialism, this creates a manufactured and false sense of supply and demand.Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.
If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism
The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.
You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.
Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.
- Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
- Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism
It also depends on your definition of greed. Is greed simply wanting more than what you have? If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or is greed doing something morally wrong or unfair to obtain more? If that's your definition, then yes it is wrong.
Avarice is more than merely wanting additional "whatever." It's the combination of (1) wanting more than is necessary to sustain oneself and those for whom one is responsible, (2) acting to get it, (3) obtaining it, (4) refusing to share that thing with others, especially in the face of their palpable and observed desperate need for it, and (5) treating/viewing the whole matter of wanting, obtaining and keeping hold of those things as a zero-sum matter. It is, then, both the act of wanting "whatever" and the attitudes/thoughts one adopts in obtaining and retaining that which one wants.
I realize that many people want a simple, perhaps binary, way of determining in advance and in the abstract what deeds and thoughts are and are not greedy, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I don't think there is such a clear and simple way to assess every instance that may be manifestations of one's greed. I think the only way to make that determination is to apply the principles given in both Christian and non-Christian modes of thought:
Those are just a few examples, but the same axiomatic principle exists in numerous segments of human culture. Which one opts to apply matters not for, at the end of the day, there is no substantive difference among them.
- Christian --> Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
- Native American --> Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him.
- Confucianism --> What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.
- Sikhism --> Precious like jewels are the minds of all. To hurt them is not at all good. If thou desirest thy Beloved, then hurt thou not anyone's heart.
- Buddhism --> Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I.
- Islam --> Woe to those who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due.
- Taoism --> Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
- Wicca --> That that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another.
- Ancient Egyptian --> Do to the doer to make him do. That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.
Lastly, you mentioned power. Power itself isn't the problem. Power accrues to oneself as a result of one's actions and luck/circumstance. Merely having power isn't the problem. How one exercises power can be a problem or not a problem.
For example, if one uses one's power to both obtain a resource and also to deny others from obtaining enough of that same resource to sate themselves too, yet there is enough of the resource that none need be unsated, it is one's greed, not one's power, that is the problem. The only reason those who are denied see one's power as the problem is because they are innately aware they cannot, in what they consider a timely enough manner and perhaps not at all, alter one's greedy attitude, but they may be able to erode or remove one's power to exercise one's greedy intentions.
P.S./Edit:
If you desire to learn of an illustration of greed in non-human nature, read this: Wolverines Give Insight into the Evolution of Greed .
Wolverines are expert hunters, rarely preyed upon, and comfortably at the top of their food web. Because their food sources are all in common with many other predators, they have become fierce competitors. Wolverines are known to chase other scavengers away from a carcass and they have no shame in stealing a hard earned kill from a smaller wolverine or even a different animal entirely.
They are voracious eaters, which gave rise to their various names in other languages such as “glutton” (in French), “gluttonous badger” (in Romanian), and “fat belly” (in Finnish). In fact, the scientific name of the wolverine is Gulo gulo, from the Latin word for gluttony. Although wolverines sound rather like playground bullies, this is all pretty standard food competition. Where does the greed come in? Well, after a wolverine has eaten all it can whether from its own kill or find, or something it has stolen from some unfortunate shlemazl, it will actually spray the leftover food with its marking scent.
This might not seem so weird and biologists once thought that the wolverines were simply marking the food to protect its next meal of leftovers. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The wolverines rarely return to their leftovers. Sure, the distinctive wolverine scent alone is probably enough to dissuade many animals, but it turns out that the spray of wolverines, unlike that of skunks, is highly acidic. By spraying noxious carboxylic acids onto the leftover food, the wolverines actually accelerate the spoiling process.
To summarize, the wolverines have consumed all they can fit into their stomachs, and then they try to spoil any leftovers so that other predators and scavengers can’t eat them. This fits part of our description of greed. It’s not just about acquiring things; it’s about having more than others have.