War and world Leaders

Post Reply New Topic

Greed is logical, it is self-interest which is something that you claimed earlier to be logical. In fact, some people might argue that greed is more logical than altruism. The big question really is whether or not a human being is serving his interests, and serving those interests is considered very logical in the context of humanity. These interests can be ideological or self-serving. Patriotism and pacifism both are the former, eating and sex are the latter. Capability is connected with logical choices, if I cannot go faster than the speed of light then logically I will never make a single plan for doing so.
It is argued that we conquer for control of resources though, and if you were arguing from that viewpoint I was simply defending the logic of doing so. In my structure statement, I said that human beings killed each other due to structures, this does not mean that human beings don't have a natural inclination to kill but rather that this killing is driven by those structures often times in the modern world. The only thing is that I seemed to word your phrase differently, however, I argued that it was impossible to get rid of structures, which I think a lot of other people believe as well, without our structure to organize human action, we have greater threats from other people taking advantage of our resources and wealth and cannot defend ourselves. Conquering is logical because you get more resources, like you said you can gain more human resources, such as slaves or subjects, I like the latter more than the former though as I think that subjects in the long run provide more wealth and you can gain resources such as land, iron, oil, etc. As well, removing nationality is untenable, if not everyone removes their nationality then the nations that don't will still have their armies and will find it desirable to act in manners so that they can crush opposition and take more subjects, land and etc. The reason for this is because it can fund their nation, it can maintain control over certain resources and never have to worry about iffiness, and in past wars current subjects held more weight than new ones, meaning that everyone in the pre-war nation that didn't die can get more wealth. If we conquer Africa, then we have control over african oil, african gold, and african diamonds, meaning that these resources are firmly under our control and that if any problems deny us access then we can fix them. Not only that, but the government can have roles in promoting economic wealth across the nation doing so based off of african wealth, if the government takes our tax money and invests it into research we can experience greater economic growth and possibly an economic boom such as that caused by the internet in the Clinton years. Finally, taking over africa will increase the access to resources by the average person because of governmental tariffs, I am certain that you don't like tariffs, and I know I don't but conquered territory will not have its shipped resources taxed so highly as unconquered and interests in government will argue for tariffs even though most would argue that the average person is harmed by them.

I can kill for ideas no matter what. Nothing prevents me from doing so outside of the law. As well, certain ideas are dangerous, such as those of psychotic cults, and of terrorists in which case it would be better to kill them before they act to do so to us.

You are a sociopath then - This is logical to you. Killing in the name of anything is logical to you. Your values of freedom, responsibility, etc, these do not exist. These are illogical to you. Self interest and full out greed is logical to you.

I never said 'greed' was logical, but if I did, I take it back as I am horribly wrong. I will not continue to debate this with you because your own interest or belief in what is 'logical' is, in my opinion, a bit sick

You are stuck in a 'herd' mentality, and what is weird is that you're an aspie/autie..

Uh..... wow. This keeps on happening. Values do not objectively exist though, they can be good rules but they have no objective, metaphysical merit. Logic as well, makes no moral distinction, it only seeks truth. Self-interest is keenly logical though, to say anything else is to falsely favor certain objectives, not only that but I believe that the best way to look at human action is to define all actions as self-serving but in different ways, altruism is a self-serving act in my opinion because you act to serve your moral preferences and nobody else's. You gain a psychic profit in the words of some economists.

Greed is fundamentally as logical as any other human action though. I remember you stating something about how war is illogical because soldiers don't serve their self-interest. The greedy do though. The big question ends up being how do we define logical in terms of human action. I define it as the rational pursuit of one's interests, which I divided into the basic, and the ideological. And through looking at this, it can be determined that both greed and altruism are logical means to achieve very different goals. Like we said earlier in the thread on compassion vs logic, people have emotionally driven goals all of the time however, logic is necessary to best achieve these goals and to examine the world.

No, you're proving to me, right or wrong, you've absolutely no understanding OF morals - anything from an Athiests to a Buddhists. You state Religion and "Nationality" exist but then say OTHER things, like values, do not - You've contradicted yourself in about 2 responses.

If you step on my toes, your logic is now impeding on MY logic. Well, we cant BOTH be right, can we? If "Greed" was logical then its logical, and perfectly acceptable (and why, logically, it hasnt happened yet, I do not know) to actively kill everyone you see - my self interest is to be the only person on this planet. < -- This is your logic. Logic is based out of intelligence - intelligence is beyond greed - talk to a monk. Funny, greed doesnt bring the happiness people think it does - its why they need to keep acquiring more (<whispering>Greed doesnt make one happy</whisper).

To clarify confusion:
Religion does not exist to me, belief does.

Meditation, arguably (and my belief), started religion. What was found through strengthening the mind and improving oneself through understanding was what ALL religions preach. Jesus, Muhammed, and proven, Buddha, were nothing more then meditators, to some beliefs (mine included).

It is these mind exercises that logic MUST accompany. If one does not have the balanced mind then one will incorporate bias into their decisions. As well, decisions are made not out of personal gain as a strong mind does not require 'accumulation of wealth' to be happy. An understanding of greed is gained. You incorporate too many negative traits and apply them as 'logical' when, in reality, how can a 'negative trait' and its corresponding 'positive' traits both be logical? They cannot! You argue them as if they are. If you view them through 'greed' then yes, 'greed' is logical but only because you want it to be, not because it actually is. One person who is greedy cannot destroy 5 people who are not. They will be outcasted in a 'true society.' You are not a contributor to that society and mooched and feed off of it too much - logically, you are a problem and need to be removed because your self interest is impeding on others.

You also argue a more herd mentality in terms of 'nationality' but would not the 'positive' traits best contribute to society versus the negative ones?

I dont feel I'm wording anything correctly as your responses are not in line with my beliefs and understanding. I am a meditator who practices daily and does his best to fix his faults and observe. These choices and decisions made by society or based out of laziness (welfare, health care) or greed (economical). I think society should have ended its progress when we developed agriculture

Last edited by Corvus on 11 Jan 2007, 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I am speaking of objective higher moral things. Values do exist in human action, but most people claim that values correspond to a greater moral truth which is what I argue against. There is no contradiction, only misunderstanding.

If I step on your toes my action is impeding yours, but not my logic. Your self-interest isn't to be the only human being on the planet, your self-interest is to follow your goals and aims. This can be greed, this can be senseless death, this can be religious enlightenment, this can be knowledge. It differs from person to person based upon individual preferences. We both have recognized that man comes up with his goals illogically in all cases in another thread, I am just applying that wisdom to human action. Intelligence is not beyond greed, this is shown by how many intelligent people can be greedy while many unintelligent are not. The real question is whether greedy people aim to increase their happiness in other ways or whether they can be happier in other ways, a greedy person may be aimed at a pride throughout their being, and might find themselves stifled by a world not driven by acquisition and power. Given that all desires are driven by an emotion, to favor one emotionally given purpose above another isn't logical as emotions are all illogical. You might argue that something may not be logical in reference to Darwin, but if that were the case the greater end for most of our lives would be sex, sex, sex. I'd argue that we accept human goals for what they are, and ask ourselves if they reach those goals rationally for the goals themselves can never be.

Yikes, then your belief is logic is simply whatever one wants.. you need to reflect heavily on this..

Please reference pyschology, philosophy, spirituality, religions, meditation, the mind, the body, the universe, and stay away from personal gain and greed.

I should also add, for clarification, greedy people CAN be intelligent, but they are not 'wise' or 'mindful' which is much stronger and VERY very different. Donald Trump may be intelligent in business but the guy has no value on life - society collapses, is his money going to protect him? not in the least - logical? not at all

Religion is belief. The metaphysical ideas behind religion might not exist but their incarnation does. It may be the same with values, your use of values though seemed to be talking about a metaphysical aspect of that rather than whether or not human beings had them. The reason I say that is you don't attack somebody on values unless you are claiming that you have a set of values that is always there.
What??? Logic does not have to accompany meditation unless you mean meditation as concentrated though rather than the way most people look at it as being that deep trance. I don't think that great logicians necessarily meditated at all in the latter but everyone in all fields uses the former. Define strong vs weak. Or are they your assumptions? The fact I point to is that people always make their goals out of emotion, greed is more likely to stem from pride and pride stems from its own bases as well and is as logical in context of human action as other ideas and beliefs. Greedy people will not necessarily be driven out in a 'true society'. In our society, the greedy can often do great things in coordinating our society's production and serving society where servants are needed to its aims. Economic action is often driven by greedy people. The idea that the greedy are necessarily mooches isn't always true,
I don't accept the positive vs negative dichotomy and view it as false. As well, society is served by both anyway, greedy people drive economic action, proud people push for high positions and important acts to be done, even violent people can be desired as well for they can entertain as fighters or work as the teeth of society, and defend it.

Pride and greed are sins in religious sense - where do you think these values came from, some guys ass? Ego is something to overcome, are you not an aspie? Have you EVER given a thought about what these things actually are? Do you know WHY people get fat and slow and sick when they eat too much (greed?). Is getting fat logical? Your argument; it is. Greed doesnt end at 'financial gain,' thats just one area - we need to discuss addiction now because, by your "logic," addiction is logical since its filling a persons interest. its perfectly logical. Its greed. its self fulfilment. Its everything logic is, apparently. I think you should submit this to a university and rewrite the books on logic and how greed is actually a positive thing. Logic is the BEST solution to a problem but apparently, you being a sociopath, it means best for YOU, not others. "Others" are the reason you can state this. "Others" are the reason you dont need to kill your food. "Others" are the reason society exists the way it does. America was founded on the principle that everyone has the right to happiness - Greed would prevent that, wouldnt it? Thats why monachs and tyrants are losing headway.

Many business rely on government intervention to actually help them beat competition before they can even start. Thats greed - thats not fairness in a society that promotes it. If you're individual 'logic' interferes with others, you are wrong in that you're logic isnt 'flawed' you just fail to see it beyond your own eyes. Its only 'you' and no one 'else.' Its only the 'business' and no one else. Logic is not 'inability to care.'

I cannot argue this anymore as you fail to fully understand 'self' when arguing logic. Think of a 'Vulcan' and it is NOT what you are arguing.

Last edited by Corvus on 11 Jan 2007, 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, my belief is that logic is the tool used to achieve whatever one wants and that beings are rational if they pursue their desires logically. Have you studied economics and their view of rationality? The link here shows part of my view on logic. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/ ... HAP_1.html


All gains people seek, they seek them personally. Even promoting an ideology leads to a personal gain if that person sees their actions do something and it makes them happy. I do reference certain ideas. A lot of my arguments are influenced by the economics version of rational and of the philosophy of praxeology, which I drew from an economics text. Praxeology argues that all men act in their perceived interests by the very nature of human action.
How is being greedy unwise? I don't really get your example but greed does not really hurt our society that much. Keep in mind that economic action is driven by self-interested actors. In promoting societal efficiency it is much better to be greedy and intelligent than kind and stupid. The former pushes for better while the latter allows for worse to continue. The greedy do not collapse society but rather promote its interests so long as they don't violate the freedom of other actors. The entrepreneur can be a man driven by greed to make money, but this does not mean that he hurts society and in many cases can help it.

whoa greed doesnt hurt our society that much? I take it you ignore history. Diamond minds anyone? Oil? You know why libertarians want to remove government? Mcfly?

OK, I said i wasnt going to respond, several times now, but i need to as you clarified some things:

You are right in the sense that using logic in PERSONAL decision making is fine, HOWEVER, USING logic in an illogical action IS NOT correct. This is where we differ. Greed does not help anyone, reflect on 'greed' and why you need to keep acquiring stuff. How many cars do you need? I need a million, what am I REALLY doing? You want truth, you are very far from it, my friend. Buddhism is a good place to start but you will find that pride, ego, greed, etc are not 'truthful' elements. Are you really after truth or just truth when there is nothing to be gained?

Why not some guy's ass? Just because some people believed something does not mean that it should be taken as true. In fact, I believe that Nietzsche argued that pride and greed are really just virtues of masters while Christianity and other religions were built by slaves to show slave values and bring down the great. Greed and gluttony are different, one can be mean and lean. Not only that but gluttony is rational if one values the pleasure gained from food now over the possibility of suffering later. As well, gluttony is logical if you are some sicko who has some form of fat fetish, as such will be pleasing in the long run to you. Logic does not make judgements on how men should act, and ethical egoism argues that greed and self-interest are the greatest goods and that is a phiosophy in and of itself. Disagreeing with you means nothing on whether or not I am a sociopath, Kissinger believed that military men were meant to be political pawns and argued that the goal for the 3rd world was depopulation but he was a brilliant and very important person. Calling your opponent a sociopath by its nature is illogical, the reason being that such can be construed as an ad hominem attack as it aims to destroy your opponents argument by saying it was made by an inferior person. Logic also makes no assumption on goals pursued either. Logically one can aim for any aim and use logic in that pursuit. America was NOT founded on the right to happiness. That is COMPLETELY wrong. It was founded on the right to pursue happiness, and greed does not get in the way of that so long as it does not violate a person's self. In fact, greed can be a part of a pursuit of happiness if one thinks that they would be best served by a legacy of wealth or something like that. Tyrants and monarchs aren't losing headway because of greed but rather because of the threat they pose to individual rights. Capitalism exists and capitalists are examples of greed and well, it is argued that capitalism is the best working system by many economists.
That is greed. I am not arguing that the use of government is good. Logic isn't the inability to care, logic is the tool used to pursue ends through the application of truths to create a logical structure. The businessman using governmental intervention is very logical in his eyes, it is just that the government happens to not be using the best actions to pursue its aims, which is something that some groups say is likely to happen with governmental power used the way it is.

No, I look at the structures we have built to accommodate for greed. It is argued that capitalism works because individuals are greedy and such is the only system that can make that serve the common man. Greed only causes problems when it violates other people's actions and that is why we try to make such illegal. Libertarians want to reduce(not necessarily remove, anarchists want to remove government, some extreme libertarians are anarchists though) government because governments do not always act in a manner that they should and because some libertarians think that governments are by nature more likely to be bent towards the interests of the few. However, quite a few libertarians take the position that greed is good. Ayn Rand's followers are known for that type of position.

Prove that the actions were illogical because if I am best sated by greedy actions then using logic is the best choice. I need as many cars as I want. If I am a car collector that could be a lot. Buddhism isn't a science though, it is a religion. I am after challenging your assumptions, as after all, you are zealous in defending them however, you cannot claim that you know truth either. I use logic as my modus operandi and I challenge your view to make sure that it does not hold emotional standpoints, which I think you do. I could throw the same claim at you about truth, I also think that for me to do so would be more valid as I think you are more emotional on this topic, calling your relatively sane, and law-abiding opponent a sociopath is indicative of this.

Dude, you are arguing logics within illogics. You cannot do that and state everything from there on is logical unless you accept that illogics spawned everything. You have made every single thing on this planet LOGICAL - do you understand what you are saying? You are stating this WHOLE world is logical. Out step 'decision making' and see what is ACTUALLY happening - just because the actions you took... I cannot do this anymore, I really cant. You keep backing up and backing up into the same argument without fully understanding what it is you are REALLY saying. You are making everything convenient for your argument using "logic" when you fail to understand the logic is wrong when used during an illogical choice. A decision to make a decision stems from a decision. At some point, an illogical decision was made. you've been making decisions since you were a child. Just because someone becomes wealthy does not mean they are the best logical people on the planet.

Do you think Donald Trump is going to get help and symapthy is society collapses? What matters then? Life! (whoa theres that argument again). Buddhism talks about a second awakening. Have you done that yet? I have. Not many people in this world go to their death and back but those who do come back differently. Those who lose ALL their friends see life differently. You're corrupted in a world of disillusion. Seek the truth, dont just talk about it, seek it. I suggest daily meditations and understanding of self. Ask what is REALLY going on in the world.

if you want to say 'logic is the best decision making' fine, but do NOT explain anything because you bring up too much illogics

btw, i dont mean to sound harsh or anything, but seriously, if you rely on greed and ego and pride and BS like that, look into it - these are the reasons many problems exist in society (label it all under the simple heading of 'responsibility')

I recognize what I say completely! The entire world does fall to some logical principles from my point of view. There is even some logic to how all people act. The major question is how much they process their information. I am not taking the purely economic point of view that all actions are logically made, however, one must accept that emotions are the source of action and that individuals based upon emotional premises try to seek the best action, the only thing is whether or not they use logic in order to appease their emotions. I also never stated that wealth=logic. Never. The big place where I view logic as not existing where it should though is in the formulation of ideas.
Do you think that there is a big risk of society collapsing? Most people don't. So wouldn't it be illogical to base decisions upon a thing that most people don't think is going to happen. Actually Donald will probably get more help and sympathy simply due to status, I mean, he has some popularity possibly because such is valuable in pursuit of wealth. I don't believe that Buddhism is the truth so why would I accept Buddhist orthodoxy. As well, I think that meditation is a waste of time, I prefer reading and thinking. I also understand myself relatively well in my opinion and I know what I want to a good extent and what I think. I do ask what is going on in the world, and I read people's views about it as well. I will admit that I went further than I believe, I did this largely to challenge you.
I think that between the 2 of us. You have shown more illogical tendencies. You tend to think that your viewpoint must be true because it is yours it seems and have attacked me on personal grounds of sociopathy. That really is not what I consider good in pursuit of truth. You are within rights to act as you have, but I think that you build upon premises I do not accept, and are not willing to change said premises even if I attempt to argue different ones.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 11 Jan 2007, 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.