Greed is just part of human nature....

[DrunkenArse]

I think that the statement "greed is part of human nature" is one of the biggest cop-outs on the planet. I think that humans are a social mammal and, as such, have the desire to gain social influence. We happen to be living in a culture that values the accumulation of material wealth as a signifier of status. Status, to a large degree, confers influence. While greed is a consequence of instinct, it is not itself an instinct. Any takers? I edited this post to refine my argument as per DuB's suggestions. Furthermore, I should make it clear that the context for this statement being a cop-out is arguments about social organization and that I am not including the desire for non-coercive influence in the definition of greed as that is not pertinent to the context.

[DuB]

I think that the statement "greed is part of human nature" is one of the biggest cop-outs on the planet. It's only a cop out if the statement is used to dismiss (rather than explain) greedy behavior. IMO, whether or not greed is a natural tendency is completely irrelevant to the question of whether people should be held morally accountable for acts of greed (they should). I think that humans are a social mammal and, as such, have the desire to gain social status. We happen to be living in a culture that values the accumulation of material wealth as signifier of status. While greed is a consequence of instinct, it is not itself an instinct. "Status" is not really the whole picture; it's more generally about social influence. Social status isn't inherently useful or desirable -- being of high status is useful or desirable to the extent that it allows social influence, i.e., high status group members exert influence over low status group members. Since lusting after social influence would fit most peoples' definitions of greed regardless of whether material wealth is involved, we could conclude that greed is indeed part of human nature. But as per my earlier point, this fact doesn't excuse immoral acts of greed. Does modern society exacerbate the effects of greed? Perhaps. But the very fact that there is a tendency that can be exacerbated speaks volumes toward the question in the OP.

[Michael]

greed is human nature... it's everywhere. society only chooses what people become greedy for.... but the greed was always there.

[Invader]

While greed is a consequence of instinct, it is not itself an instinct. Any takers? The premise here is that human beings have instincts at all. You're going to find a lot of resistance in the psychology community to that claim. Regardless of that, I believe greed can be applied to more than just material wealth, as was already mentioned in DuB's post. Greed can be applied to the hoarding of modern currency or to the gain of social influence (or power, as the word is applied to human relationships). Greed appears to be more or less the progenitor of these secondary characteristics, as opposed to the other way around. It is in this way that I'd call greed the "instinct", and the "desire for social status" (as you put it) the consequence of instinct.

[DrunkenArse]

It's only a cop out if the statement is used to dismiss (rather than explain) greedy behavior. I suppose the context to which I was referring is arguments about political systems. Often times people dismiss the more 'idealistic' lines of social thought with the blanket statement that greed is part of human nature. "Status" is not really the whole picture; it's more generally about social influence. Social status isn't inherently useful or desirable -- being of high status is useful or desirable to the extent that it allows social influence, i.e., high status group members exert influence over low status group members. Well said. I was conflating the two. I'll edit my OP to reflect this. Since lusting after social influence would fit most peoples' definitions of greed regardless of whether material wealth is involved, we could conclude that greed is indeed part of human nature. I just did some research and found out, that if wikipedia is to be trusted, then greed is defined to include the search for influence by psychologists. I grant you the whole argument as I'm just arguing against a definition. That however is not the manner in which it is often used in dismissing leftist libertarian thought. In that context, it refers to the accumulation of material wealth or coercive influence at the expense of others. If we use this definition of greed, then I believe my argument stands. My merriam webster dictionary defines it as "acquisitive or selfish desire beyond reason", so I have at least a little backing. An online dictionary gives "excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions." Does modern society exacerbate the effects of greed? Perhaps. But the very fact that there is a tendency that can be exacerbated speaks volumes toward the question in the OP. Assuming that we are going with the definitions that I have provided so that I have an argument to begin with, then you are assuming what is to be argued in making this statement.

[DrunkenArse]

The premise here is that human beings have instincts at all. You're going to find a lot of resistance in the psychology community to that claim. What other animal are ethologists going to claim lacks instincts? Please keep in mind that a psychologist is just a specialized ethologist. If humans lacked instinct, then explaining that fact would be one of the fundamental problems in all of evolutionary biology. I find it far more plausible that our cultures cut us off from our instincts and that psychologists are hence selecting poor samples for their studies. This would even be happening already in hunter-gatherer cultures to a lesser extent. Anthrocentrism runs deep. If you have an argument in favor of that claim and are inclined to share it, then I would love to see how I do against it. Some recommended reading at least would be nice.

[Kuhnada29]

I think that the statement "greed is part of human nature" is one of the biggest cop-outs on the planet. I think that humans are a social mammal and, as such, have the desire to gain social influence. We happen to be living in a culture that values the accumulation of material wealth as a signifier of status. Status, to a large degree, confers influence. While greed is a consequence of instinct, it is not itself an instinct. Any takers? I absolutely agree with you PS., and i really couldn't have said it better myself.

[DuB]

Assuming that we are going with the definitions that I have provided so that I have an argument to begin with, then you are assuming what is to be argued in making this statement. It would be an assumption if that had been all that I had said. Fortunately, nearly the entirety of my post was spent substantiating this point; hence its placement as a concluding remark. And since you've now stated that you're "arguing against a definition," I should point out that assuming the definitions that you've provided would in fact be assuming what is to be argued. As for your particular definition of greed -- acts of influence which are coercive and harmful (material wealth is best left out of the picture, as this is nothing more than a proxy for social influence) -- it seems to me to be overly limited and conceptually flawed, having more to do with malice than greed. In truth, your argument does not still stand if we use your definition; it becomes a different argument altogether. You're not arguing against inherent "greed" at all, you're arguing against an inherent tendency toward malicious bullying. Would you agree that this is the case? This is essentially the "noble savage" hypothesis. This idea is simply not tenable given all that we have observed in modern primitive cultures. I think you will find this video interesting: Steven Pinker on the myth of violence. Pinker has also written an influential book on the subject of human nature: The Blank Slate: the Modern Denial of Human Nature I haven't yet had a chance to read this book (I plan to when I can -- I already have quite a large queue of books that I'm working through), but here is an interesting 2 hour lecture by Pinker that discusses topics from that book: Steven Pinker on the Blank Slate.

[DrunkenArse]

Fortunately, nearly the entirety of my post was spent substantiating this point; hence its placement as a concluding remark. Only if we accept your definition Otherwise, it was beside the point.. As for your particular definition of greed -- acts of influence which are coercive and harmful (material wealth is best left out of the picture, as this is nothing more than a proxy for social influence) -- it seems to me to be overly limited and conceptually flawed, having more to do with malice than greed. I would say that your definition is overly broad and conceptually flawed and that it has more to do with desire than greed. Most people tend to use the word 'greed' in a negative manner. Is a high school graduate being greedy when they decide to get a degree so that they can live a better life, or do they simply desire a better life? IMO, the willingness to cause harm to others must be taken into account in defining greed. In truth, your argument does not still stand if we use your definition; it becomes a different argument altogether. You're not arguing against inherent "greed" at all, you're arguing against an inherent tendency toward malicious bullying. Would you agree that this is the case? My argument is that people generally desire to increase their social influence. By my definition, which is similar to others that I cited, this is not greedy. Violence enters the picture in that people will use it to increase their social status if they judge that it will be an effective means of doing so. As Steven Pinker pointed out in the TED lecture that you linked to, modern society is increasingly looking upon violence as a bad thing (I sort of feel funny writing that.) and so it is becoming a less effective mechanism for the pursuit of social influence. The fact that this is occuring without a corresponding decrease in the desire for social influence shows that they are separate but related phenomenon. We are, in a state capitalist/socialist system, switching towards the coercive aspect of my definition and away from the 'harm to others' aspect. This is essentially the "noble savage" hypothesis. I really need to get better at expressing myself. I am well aware that there was/is very little 'harmony' in hunter-gather cultures. They are not called savages for nothing and I have no interest in returning to that lifestyle although they are/were some hardcore and crafty fuckers that deserve a phenomenal amount of respect. Traversing the pacific in a wooden boat and actually landing on the island that you wanted is some serious business. My interest is in understanding what wild humans are like. What makes a happy wild human? It is my opinion, shared by many biologists, that we have simply not been living in civilization long enough to fully adapt from a genetic perspective and that we are still fundamentally the same wild animal that we were 20,000 years ago. Why should we adapt? We are humans and we adapt our environment to us. If we view it dialectically, then the hunter-gather lifestyle is the thesis, civilization is the anti-thesis and we are looking for the synthesis. My personal opinion is that the 'libertarian socialist' school of thought is pointing the way.

[DuB]

I would say that your definition is overly broad and conceptually flawed and that it has more to do with desire than greed. Most people tend to use the word 'greed' in a negative manner. Is a high school graduate being greedy when they decide to get a degree so that they can live a better life, or do they simply desire a better life? IMO, the willingness to cause harm to others must be taken into account in defining greed. As well it should be related to desire, since as we noted earlier, greed is essentially desire in overdrive (or more specifically, to an unreasonable and/or excessive degree). Consider the two as different points along the same continuum. Regarding willingness to cause harm, this is taken into account in the standard definition of greed, in that this willingness would be indicative of an unreasonable amount of desire. So while the desire for a college degree in itself wouldn't be greedy, the willingness to kill a man for a college degree would be -- assuming, of course, that killing a man is a strong violation of one's personal morals. In other words, if one is willing to do something that they believe to be deeply immoral in order to acquire something, this indicates an excessive level of desire for that something (and hence greed). But if one doesn't consider murder to be particularly immoral in the first place, it doesn't really tell us much at all . However, since not all acts of greed result in harm being committed to another person, the definition of greed should not be limited exclusively to those cases. The billionaire who continues to pursue ever-increasing wealth would be greedy despite that no one is necessarily harmed by this pursuit. In fact many people may be helped by this pursuit, e.g., Bill Gates continuing to provide the world with new, useful software. Gates gets another million or billion, and we get an X box. The aforementioned conceptual flaw lies in accounting for the former case but not the latter case. And even in the former case, the issue of willingness to cause harm isn't telling us the whole story. It's inadequate by itself as a criterion for defining greed. My argument is that people generally desire to increase their social influence. By my definition, which is similar to others that I cited, this is not greedy. Violence enters the picture in that people will use it to increase their social status if they judge that it will be an effective means of doing so. As Steven Pinker pointed out in the TED lecture that you linked to, modern society is increasingly looking upon violence as a bad thing (I sort of feel funny writing that.) and so it is becoming a less effective mechanism for the pursuit of social influence. The fact that this is occuring without a corresponding decrease in the desire for social influence shows that they are separate but related phenomenon. We are, in a state capitalist/socialist system, switching towards the coercive aspect of my definition and away from the 'harm to others' aspect. What does this paragraph even mean? Does this address anything that I've said? And exactly how many definitions are you advancing here? I really need to get better at expressing myself. I am well aware that there was/is very little 'harmony' in hunter-gather cultures. They are not called savages for nothing and I have no interest in returning to that lifestyle although they are/were some hardcore and crafty fuckers that deserve a phenomenal amount of respect. Traversing the pacific in a wooden boat and actually landing on the island that you wanted is some serious business. My interest is in understanding what wild humans are like. What makes a happy wild human? It is my opinion, shared by many biologists, that we have simply not been living in civilization long enough to fully adapt from a genetic perspective and that we are still fundamentally the same wild animal that we were 20,000 years ago. Why should we adapt? We are humans and we adapt our environment to us. If we view it dialectically, then the hunter-gather lifestyle is the thesis, civilization is the anti-thesis and we are looking for the synthesis. My personal opinion is that the 'libertarian socialist' school of thought is pointing the way. Once again, what are you trying to say? You maintain that modern civilization is causing humankind's problems (or, as you say, it is "the anti-thesis"), but also say that you are aware that primitive societies are at least as fucked up? And what does the part about happy wild humans have to do with anything? Maybe I'm just more tired than I realize, but both of the above passages just seem to me like gobbledygook. Please clarify . As for the parts about primitive societies, I'll break the implications down to syllogism. First... If A, then B. Not B. Therefore, not A. This is called denying the consequent. If modern civilization is the cause of coercion and greed, then primitive societies are peaceful and content. Primitive societies are neither peaceful nor content. Therefore, modern civilization is not the cause of coercion and greed.

[DrunkenArse]

Once again, what are you trying to say? You maintain that modern civilization is causing humankind's problems (or, as you say, it is "the anti-thesis"), but also say that you are aware that primitive societies are at least as fucked up? And what does the part about happy wild humans have to do with anything? Maybe I'm just more tired than I realize, but both of the above passages just seem to me like gobbledygook. Please clarify . I'm tired as well so I'm gonna come at it with a metaphor and a proper argument in the "morning" if necessary. Picture a white light. If you shine it through a filter, then you get one color and if you shine it through another filter, then you get another color. Likewise, if genes that create a drive for social influence are expressed in one culture, they lead to one set of behaviours and if they express themselves in another culture, they lead to another. I'm arguing that it is the drive for social influences that is fundamental (which I think that you agree with) and not what we would characterize as greed. When this impulse is expressed in a hunter-gatherer culture, as greed, we get overt violence. When expressed in a modern culture, as greed, we get coercion. Bill gates makes his mad loot because If corporations just made copies of windows, which is perfectly possible, then he has the threat of legal action. It is this that makes them give him money. He uses coercion, not outright violence. In dialectics, the initial condition is often referred to as the 'thesis' and the reaction to it is the 'anti-thesis' which brings its own set of problems. The 'synthesis' is the step that solves both sets of problems. Of course the synthesis introduces a whole new set of problems and so serves as the thesis in the next round. Hegel cooked up the terminology. This is called denying the consequent. If modern civilization is the cause of coercion and greed, then primitive societies are peaceful and content. Primitive societies are neither peaceful nor content. Therefore, modern civilization is not the cause of coercion and greed. It's also called arguing the contra-positive. My favorite example: If it's worth fighting over then it's worth killing over. If it's not worth killing over, then it's not worth fighting over. Does my metaphor above make it clear why this isn't a proper application? I can understand why you would think that it is given your impressions of the point I'm making. I think you're confusing my threads

[DuB]

I see. So the argument is that although a peaceful and greed-free (by your definition) society has never been observed or recorded, it may still be possible to have such a society under the right circumstances. While one cannot disprove this claim (since it's not possible to "prove" or "disprove" any inductive claim), it's plain to see that this is analogous to: although Big Foot has never been observed or recorded, it's possible that he may still exist and be hiding just in the next patch of woods. While both of these claims are certainly possible, and you can believe either one if you wish, the weight of empirical evidence is against them. On a side note, I should remind you that denying the consequent is a valid form of proof despite your intentional misapplication. It's possible to form an unsound argument of any form by using obviously false premises.

[DrunkenArse]

I see. So the argument is that although a peaceful and greed-free (by your definition) society has never been observed or recorded, it may still be possible to have such a society under the right circumstances. like I said, I need to get better at expressing myself. Well said. I would replace peaceful with more peaceful and greed free with less greedy. I hope that makes it sound a little less like bigfoot. On a side note, I should remind you that denying the consequent is a valid form of proof despite your intentional misapplication. It's possible to form an unsound argument of any form by using obviously false premises. I well aware of the power of contrapositive argument. It's one of the most powerful mechanisms of proof in mathematics. I was claiming that you applying it to my argument was a misapplication because you were applying it to a straw man. I stand by my application. I believe that. If its not worth killing over, then it's not worth fighting over.

[DuB]

I stand by my application. I believe that. If its not worth killing over, then it's not worth fighting over. Naturally I think that's absurd, but I suppose we shouldn't get into that here.

[Alric]

Greed isn't an instinct and it is not apart of human nature at all. People naturally want to feel safe and secure, and they wish to be happy. People want a lot of money, and things like influence so they are more secure. You have power and options, which make living easier and protects you. Greed is just an exaggerated form of desire everyone has, to be happy and safe. Most people would love to have a big house, but most people don't need one. They just want to be at a level where they have a handle on things.

[DrunkenArse]

Naturally I think that's absurd, but I suppose we shouldn't get into that here. I guess as the OP, it's my call to say that I don't really give a fuck about staying OT? I should say that I'm not making the claim that one should go into the fight with the intent to kill but simply that If you aren't willing to kill over something then you should walk away. What I'm advancing is pretty close to pacifism. Can you give an example of a fight that's worth fighting but not worth killing over?

[DuB]

I really don't feel like pursuing the issue.