/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3299496]

Why are greed and selfishness bad things?

[Anonymous No.3299503]

They aren't, she is just a very poor writer.

[Anonymous No.3299505]

Because we are social animals and we thrive on a certain level of altruism

[Anonymous No.3299506]

read kropotkin

[Anonymous No.3299507]

We don't like other people to be greed and selfishness.

So we agreed to stick together and play the game.

Greedy fuck, get out.

[Anonymous No.3299510]

she's an awful person and greed and selfishness are indeed bad - thee is enough for everyone except some asshole has to have it all

[Anonymous No.3299518]

Humanity benefits from common goals, altruism and loyalty. You could argue those things are based on "greed and selfishness", but it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.3299523]

>>3299505
So in other words you are altruistic in order to achieve a goal? Is that not egoistic?

>>3299507
>We don't like other people to be greed and selfishness.

So you're only argument is "I don't like it and it hurts my feelings!!!"?

>>3299510
>she's an awful person

Ad hominem.

> selfishness are indeed bad

[citation needed]

>thee is enough for everyone except some asshole has to have it all

Why are the poor entitled to resources just because they exist?

>>3299518
Define "benefit". Then prove that the benefit you've described is an objective goal and independent from cultural context.

[Anonymous No.3299526]

>>3299523
>Define "benefit". Then prove that the benefit you've described is an objective goal and independent from cultural context.

I won't. I thought we were past the stage when we assumed constructs are bad because they're constructs.

[Anonymous No.3299530]

Greed and selfishness are bad things because they cause people to try to cheat systems that only work if everybody benefits from a transaction, like a market system. In any market it is very important that both parties get the maximum value; a selfish or greedy person can cause this system to break down through fraud, in the same way that an ignorant person can cause it to break down by not understanding the economics of the transaction. Remember that self-interest is assumed on the parts of both parties however, and that disinter-mediation is to the interest of both parties, so that while both should not be attempting to cheat the other party, they should both be driving as hard a bargain as is feasible for them.

Ayn Rand is a poor writer, but her book does make a fantastic and pretty readable insight into the perspective of herself and a certain type of person. It's more than a little paranoid, though, but remember, it's a fantasy dystopia, like animal farm, and only meant to parody and not actually to directly represent.

[Anonymous No.3299531]

>>3299523
no rand allowed

report

[Anonymous No.3299533]

the only argument you will accept is from the standpoint of personal benefit, which is circular logic

we must act for the good of the many, simply for the good of the many
and that's all there is to it

[Anonymous No.3299534]

>>3299523
it would only be a fallacy if it wasn't true

she was a most awful person, shitty writer, and the inventor of the stupidest "philosophy" in last 100 years

oh boy now here it comes A=A, blah, blah, blah

[Anonymous No.3299540]

>>3299526
So in other words you admit that your goal in completely subjective. Then why should humans strive toward that goal? Why is it superior in any way to selfish hedonism?


>>3299533
>we must act for the good of the many

Why?

>>3299534
>>>/lereddit/

[Anonymous No.3299544]

Why anything?

[Anonymous No.3299545]

>>3299540
Go ahead and be a greedy asshole but if that conflicts with my personal goals/ growth I will fuck you up.

>Implying that altruism and egoism are mutually exclusive binaries

Have you even into Stirner?

[Anonymous No.3299546]

>>3299540
>>Why?

>>simply for the good of the many

there does not have to be an individual benefit; as I have said, it is presumptuous of your philosophy that there does.

[Anonymous No.3299550]

>>3299545
fuck stirner, he's the reason we're all in the po-mo shitfest.

[Anonymous No.3299553]

is/ought problem, bitch; your beloved "reason" can't tell you shit about ethics.

[Anonymous No.3299557]

>>3299545
>Implying that altruism and egoism are mutually exclusive binaries

Nice attempt at a strawman, champ. I didn't say that, I said that even altruism is egoistic because you are doing it with a personal goal in mind.

>>3299546
Why is the good of the many superior to the good of the individual?

[Anonymous No.3299559]

>>3299553
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNM-aKN3Hjw

[Anonymous No.3299562]

>>3299550

[Anonymous No.3299563]

>>3299523
>So you're only argument is "I don't like it and it hurts my feelings!!!"?
You wouldn't like to see me greedy up on you either, pal

[Anonymous No.3299564]

>>3299540
>So in other words you admit that your goal in completely subjective. Then why should humans strive toward that goal? Why is it superior in any way to selfish hedonism?
It's not "superior". You're looking for a logical explanation to something that cannot be logically explained.

[Anonymous No.3299565]

>>3299550
What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.3299571]

>>3299550
>>3299562
>>3299565

Stirner is well loved here, no.

[Anonymous No.3299572]

Selfishness and greed only lead to success in our society because most people don't act that way (at least not to extremes). when a few people act this way, they benefit at the cost of everyone else and society carries on. If everyone acted like this, society would fall apart
>tl;dr they're cheating everyone else in an ultimitly destructive manner

[Anonymous No.3299573]

>>3299563
Why would I be bothered by you acting in your rational self-interest?


>>3299564
I asked why greed and selfishness are bad things, I didn't state that they are inherently good.

[Anonymous No.3299574]

>>3299540
Almost all goals are subjective: in fact it's hard for them not to become that way. And hedonism doesn't need to be selfish> I think you're confusing self-interest with selfishness here, and "Greed" is by definition "An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth" Wanting more than you need or deserve, and excessive are bad, selfishness is bad too.

If i work and want to keep the fruits of my labors, I'm being self-interested. If I want all the materials in the world, I'm being greedy.

If I take a chocoalte from the free chocoalte bowl at work, or even several, I'm being self-interested. If I take the whole bowl, I'm being selfish.

It has to do with limits.

It's okay to want to keep what you earn, or even to take what you need from a common resource. It's not okay to want to take everything from everybody for your own exclusive use, regardless of whether you need it or have earned it: that's greedy and selfish, and therefore bad. Why is this in dispute by people old enough to know how to access the internet?

[Anonymous No.3299578]

>>3299571

You're the only one who loves him.

This is worse than a forced meme

[Anonymous No.3299584]

>>3299571
It's mixed. I like him.

[Anonymous No.3299585]

>>3299573
>Why would I be bothered by you acting in your rational self-interest?
My rational self-interest is to cut your rational self-interest for the best of me and all others.

[Anonymous No.3299588]

It's labelled as a bad thing because the avoidance of these behavior patterns is necessary to found a stable society.

You what a really selfish and greedy person can be capable of.

[Anonymous No.3299589]

>>3299572
Let's say a greedy businessman wants to make tons of money because he's selfish. He does this by offering a product or service to citizens that is superior in both price in quality. He's acting in his own self-interest, but the consumers are benefiting.

>If everyone acted like this, society would fall apart

If everyone offered services to each other in order to achieve monetary goals, society would fall apart? Can I have a citation on that?

>>3299574
>Wanting more than you need or deserve, and excessive are bad, selfishness is bad too.

Why? I want proof.

>If i work and want to keep the fruits of my labors, I'm being self-interested. If I want all the materials in the world, I'm being greedy.

If I take a chocoalte from the free chocoalte bowl at work, or even several, I'm being self-interested. If I take the whole bowl, I'm being selfish.

Arbitrary lines.

>It's not okay to want to take everything from everybody for your own exclusive use, regardless of whether you need it or have earned it: that's greedy and selfish, and therefore bad.

Again, WHY is it bad?

[Anonymous No.3299593]

>mon visage quand /lit/ can't even defend their beliefs in the face on an Ayn Rand troll
>muh feelings
>muh humanism

Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.3299602]

>>3299573
>I asked why greed and selfishness are bad things, I didn't state that they are inherently good.
I never claimed they were. Badness is subjective/contextual with no logical or universal explanation. In order to claim something is bad (or good) you'd have to blindly accept certain ideas.

[Anonymous No.3299604]

>Bitch reads some commentary on Plato and Aristotle
>Thinks she's a fuckin' philosophy master
>tries to take on Hume's ethics and Kant's epistemology at the same time
>Fails miserably
>No one, nowhere, was even the least bit surprised

And that's the story of Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.3299607]

>>3299589
Let's say a greedy buisnessman wants to make tons of money because he's selfish. He does this by offering a product or service to citizens that is superior in both price in quality. After he has accumulated sufficient power, he eliminates all other competition and becomes the sole producer of a much lower quality products. His near total control of the market means he can use economic warfare and economies of scale to prevent any competitors from flourishing. as a result, the general QoL of the citizens is reduced.

[Anonymous No.3299621]

>>3299607
inb4 monopolies can only occur through state intervention

[Anonymous No.3299623]

>>3299602
I'd glad we agree that greed and selfishness are not inherently bad things

>>3299607
Do you have a concrete example of when that has occurred? Most monopolies are created by government. They send their lawyers and lobbyists to Washington and have the rules written to keep competition out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

[Anonymous No.3299626]

>>3299589
>Let's say a greedy businessman wants to make tons of money because he's selfish. He does this by offering a product or service to citizens that is superior in both price in quality. He's acting in his own self-interest, but the consumers are benefiting.
The idea of "superior" from a capitalistic perspective is very distorted. McDonalds being an obvious example, where food quality is replaced with accessibility, low prices , brand recognition etc.

[Anonymous No.3299627]

>>3299623

[Anonymous No.3299628]

>>3299589
The point I'm trying to make here is that an essential part of the definitions of both "greed" and "selfishness" is "too much"

If it's not "too much" (that is, if it doesn't harm everyone in some way, then by defintion it's not "greed" or "selfishness".

It's not arbitrary. It's part of the definition of the concepts.

Try it like this: I define the death of everyone in the universe as "bad"

with that stipulated, Anyone whose self interested actions bring about the death of everyone in the universe is being "greedy" or "selfish".

Sorry to drag it that far into the metaphoric, but you have to understand you're arguing against the dictionary.

Saying "Greed (or selfishness) is good" is saying "bad is good", or "excessive is proportionate" or, if you want to get all objectivist, "A is not A".

[Anonymous No.3299632]

Why are they good things?

[Anonymous No.3299637]

>>3299623
If a government doesn't exist, the corporations will create one.

[Anonymous No.3299640]

A little bit of greed and selfishness never hurt anybody. It's like anything else, you need moderation.

[Anonymous No.3299643]

>>3299626
>McDonalds being an obvious example, where food quality is replaced with accessibility, low prices , brand recognition etc.

Yet people still voluntarily shop there, so obviously people enjoy the service they provide more than the competition.

>>3299628
>The point I'm trying to make here is that an essential part of the definitions of both "greed" and "selfishness" is "too much"

Who defines "too much"? A government bureaucracy?

> you're arguing against the dictionary.

No I'm not.

>greed - a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.

I must be missing the part where it says that greed is morally wrong.

>>3299637
Obviously you haven't even read Rand, she doesn't support the elimination of the government.

>>3299627
Yes, you "inb4-ed" an obvious flaw in your reasoning to prevent me from calling you out.

[Anonymous No.3299644]

>>3299623
I don't have an example outside of the 3rd world, because the government has so far legislated against monopolies. The legislature prevents it from happening, but it's clear what would happen if said legislature was removed

[Anonymous No.3299645]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Evolution

[Anonymous No.3299647]

>>3299643
>Obviously you haven't even read Rand, she doesn't support the elimination of the government.
My statement had nothing directly to do with Rand.

[Anonymous No.3299651]

Is wanting to inherit money from your parents at a lower tax rate than 55% selfish?

[Anonymous No.3299655]

>>3299645
Is the perpetuation of the human species objectively desirable? If so, rape is an efficient way of spreading your seed.

[Anonymous No.3299656]

to clarify
>>3299637
is not
>>3299607

[Anonymous No.3299665]

>>3299640
you guys are trying to annoy me aren't you?

Look, you can't have moderation in greed and selfishness, because they are BY DEFINITION excessive.

It's like the old joke about wanting to get into moderation, but being afraid of overdoing it.

[Anonymous No.3299669]

>>3299665
Why is excess wrong?

[Anonymous No.3299681]

>>3299669
because it's more than you need

[Anonymous No.3299682]

>>3299669
why are you semantically challenged?

>undue or immoderate indulgence
>the state or an instance of surpassing usual, proper, or specified limits

[Anonymous No.3299686]

>>3299665
Our selfishness [egoism] is moderated via mutual-benefit; that's not to say there isn't "bad" egoism -- which I get the feeling you seem to think selfishness is always bad.

[Anonymous No.3299689]

>>3299681
So? You don't "need" you computer, I think you're being selfish.

>>3299682
>>the state or an instance of surpassing usual, proper, or specified limits

Why is surpassing "proper" limits wrong?

[Anonymous No.3299693]

>>3299689
still waiting on >>3299644 rebutal

[Anonymous No.3299694]

>right/wrong, good/bad
>2013

Can't have those without any axioms

Really /lit/

[Anonymous No.3299697]

>>3299689
you're right, I don't need my computer, but where in my post did I say that.
I NEED, food, and shelter, both of which are in excess for some and others go without

[Anonymous No.3299701]

>>3299693
Rebut what? It's a fallacy. "I don't have any proof, but it's common sense."

>>3299697
>I NEED, food, and shelter, both of which are in excess for some and others go without

And? Why should that bother me? Is there some universal law that says I should care about starving people? I wasn't aware that /lit/ was so fond of "because my feelings" arguments.

[Anonymous No.3299702]

>>3299689
It's not "proper" to murder people.

It's not "proper" to rape infants.

Why do people keep saying murdering people and raping infants is wrong?

[Anonymous No.3299704]

>>3299697
Why haven't you sold your computer and used to money to feed African children then?

[Anonymous No.3299705]

>>3299702
They aren't objectively wrong you child.

[Anonymous No.3299714]

I arbitrarily choose to think that suffering is wrong.

[Anonymous No.3299715]

>>3299701
you live in a society, it raised you and has allowed you to survive, you have a responsibility to it

[Anonymous No.3299718]

>>3299705
I don't think you've actually read much of Rand.

Because she would argue that they are, and the ideal man would never want to do any of that.

[Anonymous No.3299719]

>>3299705
Nothing is objective, it's all semantics and wordgames from pools of liquid shit such as yourself

[Anonymous No.3299720]

>>3299705
The words murder and rape, by definition and arbitrary usage in discourse, have negative connotations which point toward immoral behavior. Killing and intercourse aren't objectively wrong, but within our own subjective discourse, the acts of rape and murder are.

Let me know when you get on my level, Randroid.

[Anonymous No.3299721]

>>3299715
>you live in a society, it raised you and has allowed you to survive, THEREFORE you have a responsibility to it

Non sequitur. Honestly /lit/, your reasoning is just pathetic.

>>3299719
Which brings me back to my original question.

>Why are greed and selfishness bad things?

And the answer is, they aren't.

>>3299718
Please stop trying to divert the conversation to Rand just because I'm using images of her.

[Anonymous No.3299722]

>>3299496

Whoa, OP, hold on. Before I answer, please explain why you have a pic of an ugly Anton Chigurh in your pic?

[Anonymous No.3299723]

>>3299643

"too much" just means "more than is good" no bureaucracy, government corporation or individual needed. And obviously one mans too much might be another's "not enough" . that's why we have politics and law.

But by saying why is greed and selfishness bad? you're embedding the assumption that we agree on the definitions, and thus the inclusion of the idea of "too much"

I realize you might just be doing this to troll Randians, but by not at least addressing the definitions of the words you introduced the discussion with, you jeopardize your credibility.


Rand did sort of go overboard in portraying the greed of politicians governments and lazy individuals as a generic vice, but you can see by her treatment of her major characters that she thought enlightened self interest to be okay, even if others saw it as "greedy".

She wasn't against self interest so much as what she saw as the greed and selfishness of governments and lazy, corrupt individuals. she considered self-interest a vice (greed and selfishness) only when it could not be justified and was forced on those who had little or no responsibilities (in her eyes) to the enforcing parties.


While you could say she hated greed and selfishness, it might be better to say she didn't like the artificial sequestration and partitioning of resources from those who had produced them for the benefit of anyone who had not.

weirdly apt captcha : gradually bushyou

[Anonymous No.3299724]

>>3299721
>why should the suffering of others bother me
because you live in a society
that's a non-sequiter how?

[Anonymous No.3299726]

>>3299720
>within our own subjective discourse

Hence the word "objectively". Try to keep up.

[Anonymous No.3299727]

>>3299496
Because when you're greedy and selfish, people who don't get what you've got, they get jealous and tell you you're wrong.

Other hand, considering that sharing builds bonds that can be fruitful in the future, it might just be smarter to share the fucking twix.

[Anonymous No.3299730]

Cut this shit out and get into actual philosophy.

Greed and selfishness conflicts with the greed and selfishness of others, and may get you in the shitter.

[Anonymous No.3299731]

>This thread
Sometimes I ain’t sho who’s got ere a right to say when a man is crazy and when he aint. Sometimes I think it aint none of us pure crazy and aint none of us pure sane until the balance of us talks him that-a-way. It’s like it aint so much what a fellow does, but it’s the way the majority of folks is looking at him when he does it.
>Lrn2connectTheDots

[Anonymous No.3299733]

>>3299726
Right. Murder and rape are objectively wrong in our subjective discourse. Problem?

[Anonymous No.3299735]

because it's not social
being social is what has made mankind great
thus greed and selfishness does not contribute to our greatness

[Anonymous No.3299736]

>>3299724
Just because others have helped me doesn't mean I owe them anything.

>>3299733
>Murder and rape are objectively wrong in our subjective discourse.

No.

>Problem?

>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.3299738]

The survival of the species is more important than the survival of the ego.

[Anonymous No.3299740]

>>3299731
My mother is a fish.

[Anonymous No.3299741]

>>3299733
The word you're looking for is 'intersubjectively' or 'obviously', not objectively.

It can not be objectively anything if it stems from subjectivity.

This board is incredibly stupid some of the time.

[Anonymous No.3299743]

>>3299736
In what way is greed objectively good?

>inb4 your argument comes crashing at your feet

[Anonymous No.3299747]

>>3299655
Rape is a terrible way of perpetuating the human species as the offspring has a high chance of poor fostering (given the male doesn't stick around). The nuclear family is much more effective and as such has led to rape's status as morally bad and supportive families as morally good.

[ModernOrthodoxJew !S1cHehDGB2 No.3299749]

[Anonymous No.3299751]

>>3299735
Define "great". Now prove that the goal of humanity is to achieve this "greatness".

I'm waiting.

>>3299738
[citation needed]

>>3299743
I never said it was, can you read? I asked why it was BAD. The result was a bunch of mental children trying to turn their feelings into morality.

[Anonymous No.3299752]

>>3299736
This brings us back nicely to a point I made at the start. If everyone acted like this, society would fall apart.
>>3299572

[Anonymous No.3299754]

>>3299736
>no logical refutation of anything

waiting for a response on this, also.
>>3299719

[Anonymous No.3299757]

>>3299751
So you admit that greed and selfishness aren't good?

[Anonymous No.3299759]

NOTHING IS OBJECTIVELY GOOD OR BAD

WE ALL HAVE ARBITRARY NOTIONS OF 'OUGHT' BASED ON FEELINGS

IT'S NOT DIFFICULT

[Anonymous No.3299765]

You might as well say, why is evil bad? or why is sin sinful, or, again, why is "A", "A".

Bear with me because I haven't read Atlas Shriugged in like forty years, but fleeing the greed and selfishness of society in trying to apportion the goods and services acquired by their labors or in fair commerce was the reason "Atlas Shrugged" in the first place, right? I mean, greed and selfishness may not have been the only things rand hated, but they were clearly in the top ten. She unarguably saw them as "bad" or she wouldn't have tried to make those attempting to take over the railroad and the steel making process (obviously greedy and selfish acts since she goes to great lengths to show how the people doing these things had no need and did not deserve these things). At least thats what I remember.

I need to read it again, I know, but I need to schedule a tetanus shot too, and i keep putting them both off for similar reasons.

captcha : Hecklr phil

[Anonymous No.3299767]

>>3299751
>I asked why it was BAD

>THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD AND BAD IT'S ALL OBVIOUSLY SUBJECTIVE

I'm getting mixed messages here anon

[Anonymous No.3299769]

Quite the 'objectivity' arguments, everyone, morality and ethics are inherently subjective. Though those who think murder is right do well to consider the consequences. OP is a sophist.

>>3299749
That sounds more akin to stoicism than Rand.

[Anonymous No.3299770]

the golden rule
humanism
the cardinal virtues
Plato's conception of justice
social contracts
Marxism

take your pick

[Anonymous No.3299771]

>>3299751
>define great

Use pretty much any measurement you'd like. There is no denying that humankind is vastly superior to any other species. If one argues that humans with all their faults are immoral because they commit crimes against nature or whatever, there must be a greater immorality in committing crimes to other humans, if nothing else then from an evolutionary standpoint.

[Anonymous No.3299772]

>>3299752
>If everyone acted like this, society would fall apart.

Still waiting for proof. Also, why should "society" take precedence over the individual?

>>3299754
I responded.

>Which brings me back to my original question.

>Why are greed and selfishness bad things?

>And the answer is, they aren't.

>>3299757
Greed and selfishness are not morally superior to nor morally inferior to humanism or altruism.

>>3299767
That's the point of this thread, to let reddit babbys know that their emotional arguments against greed are unfounded in terms of objectivity and hinge entirely on "it hurts my feelings".

[Anonymous No.3299777]

>>3299771
>There is no denying that humankind is vastly superior to any other species.

Merit is subjective.

[Anonymous No.3299779]

>>3299767

It's not bad. It's not good. Easy as pie.

[Anonymous No.3299780]

stop being trolled please. Y'all are better than this.

[Anonymous No.3299781]

>>3299772
>unfounded in terms of objectivity

EVERYTHING is unfounded in terms of objectivity you total fucking shitcock!

[Anonymous No.3299783]

>>3299780
The problem is that even if OP is playing devil's advocate, /lit/ still should be more intelligent than this. I mean, these argument against greed are pretty pathetic.

[Anonymous No.3299790]

>>3299781
That's the point, slugger.

[Anonymous No.3299793]

>>3299777
If it is there are different levels of sanity in the evaluations of merit

I'm a big a fan of anarcho-primitivism as the next guy, but we should atleast have the decency to acknowledge the fact that this kind of misanthropy is inhuman, anti-intellectual and anti-evolutionary

[Anonymous No.3299796]

>>3299793
>inhuman

In your opinion.

>anti-intellectual and anti-evolutionary

So?

[Anonymous No.3299798]

>>3299772
you guys are all fighting the dictionary. this is the cardinal sin of Philosophy 101. clearly define and agree on your terms and stipulate your axioms before you engage in debate.

I for one would like OP to clearly define his terms. If he says that "greed" means cotton candy and "selfishness" means sugar plums, i'm not sure I'd dispute him
and if he thinks "altruism" means snakebite and "humanism" means gangrene, same as above.

[Anonymous No.3299799]

>>3299772
>to let reddit babbys know that their emotional arguments against greed are unfounded in terms of objectivity and hinge entirely on "it hurts my feelings".

If we're going to reduce it like that, so is every argument FOR greed or selfishness.

It just so happens that we intersubjectively agree we don't all want to totally fuck ourselves over in conflict, and so we've formed this social contract to stifle greed and selfishness as a way of harming others without benefiting everyone else.

That's a bit of an oversimplification, but that's all I think you'd understand.

[Anonymous No.3299800]

OP is just playing devil's advocate and you dumbasses are just feeding him.

[Anonymous No.3299804]

>>3299772
>Still waiting for proof
corrupt dictatorships are a good example. Everyone trying to get ahead of one another and being greedy leads to division and collapse. The Nazi party didn't have greedy members, they worked with each other, to acheve their ends, meaning they could only be stopped by a huge millitary force.
The USSR on the other hand, and rather ironicly, was full of rats willing to stab their fellow man in the back to get ahead, they crumbled and failed without any military intervention

[Anonymous No.3299807]

>>3299799
>If we're going to reduce it like that, so is every argument FOR greed or selfishness.

Except I never argued FOR it, dumbfuck. I asked why it was bad, and you all embarrassed yourselves.

[Anonymous No.3299808]

>>3299790
and it only took 100 posts of obnoxious misdirection and semantic retardation to arrive at that conclusion

Happy New Year's op

[Anonymous No.3299815]

>>3299799
>It just so happens that we intersubjectively agree we don't all want to totally fuck ourselves over in conflict, and so we've formed this social contract to stifle greed and selfishness as a way of harming others without benefiting everyone else.

That has nothing do to with the inherent "wrongness" of greed or selfishness.

[Anonymous No.3299830]

>arguing with teens over the definitions of words on Dec. 30, 2012

[Anonymous No.3299831]

>>3299807
Okay, so it was a loaded question. And, mind, this question is the kind to bait the most reactionary people. I'd say it's still more reflective of you than 'us'.

>>3299815
It's that by which we've found it to be wrong. I've just explained to you why people will consider it wrong.

Not objectively wrong, but wrong in that most will agree that it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.3299848]

>>3299831
>Not objectively wrong

I'm glad we agree.

[Anonymous No.3299861]

>>3299848
It's still an obvious sort of 'wrong', though, and you didn't say that you wanted to know why greed and selfishness were objectively wrong, just wrong. If you had said what you meant, you'd have been called an idiot and everyone would have ignored it.

No one has learned anything from this thread.

[Anonymous No.3299870]

>>3299861
I have learned that /lit/ think that "because my feelings" is an actual argument. I've also learned that beneath the posturing, most of you are actually pretty dumb.

I hereby proclaim my victory in this thread.

[Anonymous No.3299876]

>>3299870
I'm not sure victory was every possible. When you can win a debate by quoting the dictionary, you're not having a debate, xanatos to the contrary notwithstanding

[None !chCey8rBHE No.3299878]

>>3299870
still waiting on reply to >>3299804

[Anonymous No.3299882]

>>3299876
See >>3299643
> you're arguing against the dictionary.

No I'm not.

>greed - a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.

I must be missing the part where it says that greed is morally wrong.

[Anonymous No.3299884]

>>3299870
You've learned that you can reduce subjectivity to 'because my feelings' in a condescending manner and without considering intersubjectivity, and that reactionary people tend to spew shit when someone says something inflammatory, anyone clever hid the thread when they saw Rand.

I get you're a troll, but I don't quite know how to put exactly how idiotic you're acting.

[Anonymous No.3299891]

>>3299878
He will probably ask why society falling down is a bad thing

[Anonymous No.3299895]

OP resorts to relativism whenever someone tries to make a point. Of course nobody can win a discussion about "bad", "great", "right" etc when everything related to these concepts is constructed. It's a meaningless debate unless both are prepared to accept certain frameworks as true.

[Anonymous No.3299897]

>>3299895
>OP resorts to facts whenever someone tries to make a point.

I'm sorry the reality of moral relativism is inconvenient to your feelings.

[Anonymous No.3299898]

>>3299870
>I have learned that /lit/ think that "because my feelings" is an actual argument.

Why is that argument bad?

[Anonymous No.3299900]

>>3299897
I didn't disagree. I just told you to shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.3299905]

>>3299900
>>3299884
Why is your behind in such pain?

[Anonymous No.3299906]

>>3299882
Excessive desire is bad, or the word excessive wouldn't apply. Excessive is "too much" by definition. You're saying why is "too much" too much?. Bad doesn't have to mean morally wrong either, it might just mean "harmful" or against ones interests, or ineffective in some way. Still, if you want an argument for why greed is morally wroong, pifck a system of morality first. It's a deadly sin after all. and "the love of money...etc."

While you could argue that no objective definition of greed as bad applies, rand will rise from her grave and selectively apportion your heart if you do. What part of "A is A" eludes you?

[Anonymous No.3299909]

>>3299905
Because you perceive it that way.

[Anonymous No.3299915]

>>3299906
>Excessive desire is bad

[citation needed]

>or the word excessive wouldn't apply
>Excessive - more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate

Nowhere does it state it is wrong.

[Anonymous No.3299921]

>>3299905
I don't know how to tell a child he's acting childishly when he's trying to bother me when all the while, he thinks he has masterfully outwitted me.

[Anonymous No.3299924]

>>3299921
I have not only outwitted you, but all of /lit/, and quite effortlessly. This thread is proof. At this point you're just attempting damage control.

[Anonymous No.3299931]

>>3299924
im physically cringing at this post

[Anonymous No.3299935]

>>3299924
still no reply to>>3299804

[Anonymous No.3299939]

>>3299931
I can understand why you would be cringing, after the beatdown you have taken in this thread.

[Anonymous No.3299945]

>>3299915
I'm running out of ways of making this clear.

I'm not saying that it's morally wrong. That assumes there's a code of morals that always applies, as in Randian Objectivism or christianity. What I'm saying is that to be excessive, and this to be "greedy" it has to meet some definition of "bad" or it's not greed. Let me pu6 it this way: Selfishness that isn't by some definition "bad" and excessive" and "harmful" isn't selfishness, and the same goes for greed.

It's not "greed" if it's just, deserved and proportionate by some definition.

The concepts of "Greedy" And "good" are like the riddle of Santa Claus and the mouse:
They're similar in that they both have a long white beard and a red suit. Except the mouse.

[Anonymous No.3299951]

>>3299945
>I'm not saying that it's morally wrong

I'm glad we agree, then.

[Anonymous No.3299957]

>>3299951
It's about time you agreed. I hate to just KEEP restating the obvious. Or you drinking or something?

[Anonymous No.3299962]

>>3299496
They make you unhappy.

[Anonymous No.3299970]

>>3299951
OP, why can you not reply to>>3299804?

[Anonymous No.3299974]

Please archive and keep this thread for yourself.

Go over it about once every year and remind yourself that you once genuinely thought it was clever of you to make this post.

And I get that this is the reaction you're aiming for, but that won't diminish your disgust.

[Anonymous No.3300006]

Hey OP are you going to payback your parents for all the money they spent feeding clothing and educating you?

[Anonymous No.3300056]

>>3299974
Please calm down.

[Anonymous No.3300894]

>>3299545
>Go ahead and be a greedy asshole but if that conflicts with my personal goals/ growth I will fuck you up.
haha

[Anonymous No.3300908]

>>3300006
>implying they didn't chose to have you
>implying you aren't their responsibility
>implying you owe them shit

[Anonymous No.3300919]

These discussions always boil down to "teacher, can Martin and I switch places?" - "I am sorry Timmy, but not today. If I let you switch, everyone will also want to switch, you do understand, Timmy?"

[Anonymous No.3300935]

>>3299962
>filename

[Aleksei !!sKv+7bqk97k No.3300995]

Only crazy ugly chicks resort to it.

The crazy ugliest of them all even resort to writing doctrines on the subject.

Don't be crazy ugly. Handsome people appreciate their neighbors on this one planet of ours.

[Anonymous No.3301035]

>>3299496
In the purview of those they harm they are. In the purview of those that are benefited from them, they are seen as indignant, without the opinions of those who have a certain level of empathy toward those oppressed by the latter's superiority.

[Anonymous No.3301067]

The irony of Rand's writings is that anyone stupid enough to take her underlying philosophy seriously, would very likely be at the bottom of the society created by it.

[Anonymous No.3301198]

Rand's works are satirical commentary on the bourjoise condition.

[Anonymous No.3302355]

>>3299496

Bad for what?