Posted by: Victoria! ®
03/18/2003, 18:24:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
If I were God (goddess) for a day I would rid the world of hate, bigotry and greed for all time. My prophet? Prophets, the children. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Tue, Mar 18, 2003, 18:55:54
|
Posted by: ramona ®
03/18/2003, 18:56:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
The collective voices of children shouting, "mommy I vomitted in my bed...and I have diarrhea. It must suck to be Victoria's prophet...all those bloody whinning children.Ramona
|
Posted by: JAK ®
03/18/2003, 21:56:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria stated:
“If I were God (goddess) for a day I would rid the world of hate, bigotry and greed for all time.”This would deprive all those who would do good from doing good. It would end a free enterprise system (the fundamental basis of which is greed). Then there is the matter of relativity of these things. “Hate” is relative. Somewhere along a continuum, apathy turns to dislike long before it turns to hate. So, would you rid the world of “dislike”? How would you draw a line between “hate” and what comes just before that? The same could be said for the other characteristics mentioned. Would you continue to go to work everyday at your job if you stopped being paid for your work? How long would you continue to work for free? “Greed” is a relative thing, not an absolute. People are relatively greedy. So your task in this hypothetical is much more complex than you seem to realize. Now you could argue that a “fair wage” for work is not related to greed. But it is. What is “fair”? We don’t agree on what is fair. Dick Cheney thought $34 million for one year, his last year, at Halliburton was fair. Others saw it as greed. One man’s fair is another man’s greed. Basketball players sign contracts for millions. Basketball is a game to be played for fun and exercise. Or is Basketball a business, a profitable business? So where would the economy be if we eliminated greed from the world. You would “rid the world of greed.” Easy to say until you are confronted with some universal agreement on what IS greed. So you would rid the world of greed as YOU define greed. Definitions, dear God for a day, definitions. You took more than you were offered. You were greedy. The question was if you were God for a day. You took a day and wiped out all those things “for all time.” That seems pretty greedy to play “God for a day” and seize “all time.” JAK
|
Posted by: TLC ®
03/19/2003, 07:35:08
Author Profile Mail author
|
Jak; Greed is nothing more than a (among numerous others) "security and survival instinct", in which each individual measures his own needs and requirements.When storing potatoes for the winter, one is never sure how intense and long the winter will be. The more potatoes stored (greed, in many eyes) the more likely you are to survive. Where the problem lies in most cases, is when I think that you have stored more potatoes than is realistically required. I have imposed my perception of what is needed, on you. That is wrong. TLC
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
03/19/2003, 12:48:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
I've always wondered what greed is. You say:"Where the problem lies in most cases, is when I think that you have stored more potatoes than is realistically required. I have imposed my perception of what is needed, on you. That is wrong." And JAK in answer to Vicki (I think) says: "You would “rid the world of greed.” Easy to say until you are confronted with some universal agreement on what IS greed." In other words we are looking for the definition of GREED. Is there no good definition?
|
Posted by: JAK ®
03/19/2003, 18:19:46
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman,In discussion we might agree to some definition of greed. The problem, as you seem to recognize, is that we cannot agree upon a definition for all-time. You have interpreted me correctly. Just to amplify this:
Do we need a telephone? I am not talking about a cell phone, just a hard-wired telephone. Do we “need” it? Most of us would say that we do. But we all know enough history to know that throughout most of human history (tens of thousands -- hundreds of thousands of years) there was NO telephone. So do WE need a telephone? Most of us would answer yes. Yet some go on vacation and deliberately exclude the telephone on that vacation. They want to get away from the phone. We could ask the same question about electricity, cars, running water, etc. Do we NEED running water? Virtually all of our ancestors did not have running water. So do we need it? Most of us would say yes. Therefore, such things as “need” and “greed” are quite relative to time and place and social situation. Victoria has a dilemma which would be most difficult to resolve. Just what do we NEED? JAK
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
03/19/2003, 19:02:57
Author Profile Mail author
|
Agreed. Not only it depends on time but also on place: Where in the world we are talking about? Now, you start with:"In discussion we might agree to some definition of greed." I want to see more on that point. Period.
|
Posted by: JAK ®
03/19/2003, 19:19:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman,Within the confines of a particular group with particular objectives, we might agree upon some definition of greed. We “might,” but we might not. In a discussion form such as this, we are most unlikely to find agreement on what greed means. For example:
In a particular socio-economic group of people with the same level of income, the same standard of living, the same values -- in such a group as that, the individual members might say “yes, yes” to one another as each characterizes greed. But as we cross various levels in those categories which I mentioned, disagreement on greed will quickly emerge. On this form, neither you nor I could construct an all-inclusive definition to which all who read here would agree. It would not be possible. Victoria had an idea which could not find universal agreement at large. She wanted to eliminate greed. She said that without any agreement on what that term meant. We could not agree here. We can look up that word. But as we get into definitions, we soon find that all words which attempt to characterize “greed” are subjective. We quickly must recognize that the definitions of greed are well connected to personal values. You will recognize that if a large number of people have almost no food, almost no water, almost no protection from weather elements -- those people will have a very different perception of what they need than you or I have. Sitting at our computers in our well-heated, well-cooled, climate controlled homes with food at the ready, water at the ready, doctors at the ready, hospitals at the ready -- WE have a very different notion of “need” or “greed” than the people I described in the paragraph just above. If you want us to agree upon a single definition for “greed,” I am afraid you are not going to find it. JAK
Modified by JAK at Wed, Mar 19, 2003, 19:24:32
|
Posted by: TLC ®
03/21/2003, 19:12:49
Author Profile Mail author
|
....as it should. There is no final awnser to anything, as far as I'm concerned. Having all the awnsers sounds rather boring, mundane and unexciting to me. But, then again what do I know?TLC
|
Posted by: gottogo ®
03/20/2003, 23:47:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
I have, rather more often that may be wholesome, considered this question. The conclusion I have drawn for my life is that I NEED: shelter, pottable H2O and some kind of food, a way to keep myself clean, something useful to do, something to love. Not always in that order.
Other peoples needs are different.
|
Posted by: JAK ®
03/22/2003, 20:43:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
...makes your perception of “need” (not to be confused with greed) probably different from that of Dick Cheney, professional athletes, and Martha Stewart. :-) JAK
|
Posted by: JAK ®
03/19/2003, 18:07:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
TLC states:
Where the problem lies in most cases, is when I think that you have stored more potatoes than is realistically required. I have imposed my perception of what is needed, on you. That is wrong.JAK:
Understanding that all analogies are inherently weak, the problem in this analogy is what is “realistically required”? That assessment is almost entirely subjective (whether potatoes or something else). Did Dick Cheney require $34 million his last year at Halliburton? Of course, we would agree he did not. But, he took the money. He did not say, I appreciate your confidence, but I do not require $34 million this year. $15 million would be all I require. Assessment of what is required is subjective. Why is that “wrong”? Wrong, as you use the term, is also relative. Your notion of wrong is not that of someone else.How much one requires is dependent upon one’s particular environment, experience, and personal assessment of need. There simply is no escaping the subjective element of evaluating what is “required.” JAK
Modified by JAK at Wed, Mar 19, 2003, 18:08:22
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
03/22/2003, 12:49:18
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think that reasonable people can agree, though, that greed becomes a problem and is immoral when one continually wants more and more without regard to whether or how many people one has to hurt or even kill in order to obtain what one wants. An extreme example is Saddam Hussein, who doesn't care how many of his own people he has to kill or torture to remain in power and insure continuation of his opulent lifestyle. I think it is reasonable to conlude that it is morally wrong to aspire to and maintain a level of material wealth and comfort that can only be maintained by reducing most other people to extreme privation and suffering in order to maintain it. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with anyone being wealthy, though, if they reinvest their excess wealth into the economy in such a way that it creates new jobs and opportunities for others who are less fortunate to improve their lot in life.I don't think that amassing great material wealth is the key to happiness, though. The real key to happiness is quality relationships with loved ones and having someone with which to share one's burdens and good fortunes. I think that someone with a relatively modest income, living in a modest, but adequate and comfortable home, with a good family and time to enjoy and appreciate these modest assets can be much happier and more fulfilled than an extremely wealthy individual who is continually obsessed with augmenting and holding on to ever increasing material assets. Another way of putting it is that happiness lies more in wanting and appreciating what you get than in getting what you want. Gunnar
|
Posted by: TLC ®
03/19/2003, 07:13:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
.......to have the audacity and ignorant arrogance, to even begin to imagine that mere humans have the capacity to improve on the judgements and decisions that an omnipotent and all knowing God already implements? If I were God for a day I, like him, would be keeping a list of those who dare challenge my wisdom. How much heat can you stand? TLC
|
Posted by: TLC ®
03/19/2003, 18:50:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
Oh OH Your onto me! Pretty hard to put anything past ole JAK.
|
Posted by: JAK ®
03/19/2003, 19:30:38
Author Profile Mail author
|
TLC,That’s all well and good, but what do you mean by “ole”?
I refuse to resemble that. I might even resent it. I hope you’ll rescind it. JAK
Modified by JAK at Wed, Mar 19, 2003, 19:31:40
|
Posted by: JAK ®
03/19/2003, 21:48:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
O, they never let ya out of da home. Once yarr in dare, yarr in fur life...in a manner of speaking.
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
03/20/2003, 00:11:56
Author Profile Mail author
|
I couldn't help but notice that you've started speaking in tongues.Victoria
;-)
|
Posted by: JAK ®
03/21/2003, 11:18:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
Tongues? No it’s diss hair kebird. Summon jest rerangd da kees. Err, is dat da same ting as tonns? JAK Even wiff rewrit, I kaint git it rite.
Modified by JAK at Fri, Mar 21, 2003, 11:21:23
|
Posted by: TLC ®
03/20/2003, 08:31:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Ole" means experienced, knowledgeable, seasoned, traveled and an all around good guy. Still want me to rescind it?TLC
|
Posted by: JAK ®
03/20/2003, 15:58:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
I’ll take it under advisement...It begins to have a better ring to it. “Rescind” perhaps should be suspended. That’s it suspend rescind. But we MUST use your definitions. JAK
|
Posted by: ramona ®
03/20/2003, 16:45:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
I know, I know. I'm being a troublemaker again. Of course we are using Terry's definition, what other definition would we use?Ramona
|
Posted by: TLC ®
03/21/2003, 08:55:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
JAK; Your'e a poet....and don't know it. But, your feet show it....They're long fellows. I couldn't resist, TLC
|
|
