Those Greedy Bastards!

Where does greed begin? In other words, at what discrete point does one's action(s) become that of greed? What with all the financial and other problems people are experiencing with this latest recession (2009), it seems almost obligatory for emotions to quickly and confidently allot blame and create all manner of scapegoats in the process. Those greedy bastards they are!

This sentiment is or at least seems well justified but which select few are the “true” greedy bastards at which to channel our anger? Isn't it obvious? Or is it? It seems apparent which are overly greedy and which are not greedy in the least, but what about the vast majority of us that seem neither greedy nor not greedy in the least? Where do we fit?

Can each of us be labeled either greedy or not greedy in the least? Not likely because if there is a discrete point at which one becomes greedy, this seems unfair because the person only slightly higher on this “scale of greed” will be looked at in a totally different light. Meaning, a person who is only slightly more inclined to greed than another is greedy whereas the other is not greedy in the least.

Of course it is obvious what the typical response will be to reconcile this dilemma. We all possess varying levels of greediness! In other words, there exists a great chasm between greediness and lack thereof spanning a continuous spectrum. With this admission though, it seems we have simply recreated the original dilemma.

Once again, where does greed begin? If assessing greediness must be done on a continuous spectrum, what level of greediness is the threshold by which one is to be labeled greedy? On the other hand, we could ask the opposite. By how much must one lessen his greed so as not to be labeled greedy?

Here is the crux of the issue. Only arbitrarily can we ever determine this. Suffice it to say, there will not be consensus on this. So who is “right”? All of us? Or perhaps none of us? What do you think? What might God think?

See link below for further discussion:

The Machine That Is Greed
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/07/machine-that-is-greed.html

This Works, That Doesn't

It is often claimed by politicians, especially during campaigning, that they will do away with programs and policies that “do not work”. What does this mean? How is the determination made as to a program's or policy's efficacy? This once again is totally subjective based on different peoples' perspectives and above all else opinions.

Many will say being overly “generous” with entitlements for the poor does not work. But if one is poor and lazy, how does this not work for him? Typically we as a society evaluate a program's or policy's viability based on utilitarianism. A given program might serve its constituents exceptionally well, but if the costs of this program are too high for the number of people it benefits, it likely will be construed as something that “does not work”. 

But this type of thinking is merely arbitrary because it is not always followed. Oftentimes, we will pay anything to get back prisoners-of-war or kidnap victims, for example. But this is not utilitarianism, rather it is emotions that account for this type of response.

So how do we determine whether to base difficult decisions on utilitarian principles or emotional responses? How can this line be drawn but arbitrarily? Requiring buildings to have handicap access is likely driven by emotions as the cost of implementing these standards almost certainly outweighs the utilitarian benefits.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not against basing decisions on emotional foundations. Neither am I against basing decisions on utilitarian principles. I am simply pointing out that there is no imperative as to what should be done in any given situation. It is but subjective based purely on competing opinions no doubt shaped and motivated by how these issues affect us as individuals and as groups we represent. This seems selfish. And it is! It is nothing but evolutionary group selection. This is nothing to feel guilty about. It just is!