GREAT piece on God...Goodness...Evil...Love...and 'why?'

[shadrack]

problem - how to define "good"

Can a person define "good" without prejudice? Is "good" particular to a given person or experience? Should "good" be defined by the giver or reciever? Can two experiences of the exact same quality have different value? Can something that is "good" also be something else?

Can a person define the qualities that make things "good"? I think a person can define what "good" is not.

The author has no problems.......everything is good......he must be one of those hedonists!!

Is "good" sometimes just doing the best you can, even though you probably could have done better? Hey, if it pleases you, it pleases me.....ha!

 

[shadrack]

.....theory of naturalism, which states that you should act in your own self-interest, and the people in your way be damned.

You're thinking of ethical egoism. A warped form of utilitarianism where everyone acts in their own best interest. It's a confusing mixture of suggestions that everyone benefits from the liberation of the creative energy that will flow from unfettered self-interest. Its main idea is that "true" self-interest cannot be served by stealing, cheating, or other antisocial behaviors. It's paradoxical.

.....wait, that's Bush's rationalization for his economic policies......

 

[wade]

I choose not to steal because the Bible, which I take as God's Word, tells me not to steal. My question to you is, if you are an atheist (or agnostic) and believe that there is no God, no afterlife, no consequences for what we do on Earth, then what causes you to believe that others "should be treated with honor and respect?" If you say that it's the "right way," how did you come to that conclusion? It certainly goes against the theory of naturalism, which states that you should act in your own self-interest, and the people in your way be damned.

Well, I cannot speak for the Aethiests. If you've read my single particle theory post you might understand the basics of my beliefs. But in a nut shell, the reason to live a moral life is so that we will create a moral world where we and our children can live in peace and harmony.

And besides, I've seen far too many "religous" people who live for number one first and formost to believe that the bible successfully deters such selfishness in individuals prone to that kind of thinking. I believe it's about how you were raised, the basic ideas passed to you by your parents, and the bible is secondary even if you think its the core of your morality.

And isn't the "look out for number one only" mentality exactly what you conservative bible thumpers advocate in your politics? Why is it okay to advocate this in politics yet then pretend you don't advocate it in your individual lives because of your faith?

I understand what you are saying. You are saying that there has to be a First Cause for the universe. I say that the First Cause is God.

No. You say there has to be a first cause and that cause is God. I say that is no answer at all because who created God? It's just circular logic - it explains nothing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well, I cannot speak for the Aethiests. If you've read my single particle theory post you might understand the basics of my beliefs. But in a nut shell, the reason to live a moral life is so that we will create a moral world where we and our children can live in peace and harmony.

And besides, I've seen far too many "religous" people who live for number one first and formost to believe that the bible successfully deters such selfishness in individuals prone to that kind of thinking. I believe it's about how you were raised, the basic ideas passed to you by your parents, and the bible is secondary even if you think its the core of your morality.

And isn't the "look out for number one only" mentality exactly what you conservative bible thumpers advocate in your politics? Why is it okay to advocate this in politics yet then pretend you don't advocate it in your individual lives because of your faith?



No. You say there has to be a first cause and that cause is God. I say that is no answer at all because who created God? It's just circular logic - it explains nothing.

For umpteenth time wade, you're wrong. We conservatives acknowledge that part of human nature is selfishness, and that this drive to survive should be acknowledged and worked with instead of denied, villified, and ultimately cynically embraced as lying apparatchik, government libs do.

Corporations openly admit they're for profit. Now if libs would just admit they're into government for the same reasons we'd be getting somewhere. But libs lie and say their tyranny is "for the people", what a bright shining lie.

 

[shadrack]

For umpteenth time wade, you're wrong. We conservatives acknowledge that part of human nature is selfishness, and that this drive to survive should be acknowledged and worked with instead of denied, villified, and ultimately cynically embraced as lying apparatchik, government libs do.

Corporations openly admit they're for profit. Now if libs would just admit they're into government for the same reasons we'd be getting somewhere. But libs lie and say their tyranny is "for the people", what a bright shining lie.

The human drive to survive is acknowledged.

We should embrace the whole of human nature and strive to develop a culture that helps diminish vices and develop virtues. Because selfishness is not a virtue. Selfishness serves one to the detriment of another. Selfishness is at the heart of all corruption. Including within the Soviet Union.

You believe in a paradox.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The human drive to survive is acknowledged.

We should embrace the whole of human nature and strive to develop a culture that helps diminish vices and develop virtues. Because selfishness is not a virtue. Selfishness serves one to the detriment of another. Selfishness is at the heart of all corruption. Including within the Soviet Union.

You believe in a paradox.

Selfishness is. Selfishness is at the heart of all life. There will always be competition, society is structure around how this competition may occur. Selfishness also forces us to decide to cooperate, when the benefits of cooperation outweigh the costs.

Your "selfishness is wrong" pronouncement is the epitome of black/white simplistic thinking.

 

[shadrack]

Selfishness is. Selfishness is at the heart of all life. There will always be competition, society is structure around how this competition may occur. Selfishness also forces us to decide to cooperate, when the benefits of cooperation outweigh the costs.

Your "selfishness is wrong" pronouncement is the epitome of black/white simplistic thinking.

There will always be competion.

So, cooperation is only good if it has a benefit to a person? Cooperation is not good outside of personal desire? (if it feels good, do it, eh?)

What is the mechanism that puts selfishness in check? Other people's selfishness? The notion that it is all put in check by some "invisible" unwritten law is ludicrous. Maybe we should do away with laws in general. Maybe we all would benefit from "naturally" being put in check? The idea that everyone should act selfishly is a scheme that benefits the few to the detriment of the many.

Accepting selfishness as a standard for ethical behavior is not a necessary consequence of human frailty. It is a consequence of a society to require intelligent, long-term planning as a qualifier to engage in selfish endeavours.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There will always be competion.

So, cooperation is only good if it has a benefit to a person? Cooperation is not good outside of personal desire? (if it feels good, do it, eh?)

I'm saying cooperation with other entities is judged by the individual as having either a positive or negative consequence, and the indidual either continues or desists cooperation based on this assessment.

The basic social cooperation contract is enforced by government and contains at it's core, an assignnment of a socially validated moral negative value to the activities deemed as "crimes". Are you with me so far? Thus the main question in government and politics is "What are the terms of the social contract?"
Do we expect the government to satisfy our envy by sticking it to the rich, like libs? Or do recognize that the freedom to survive or perish based on our contributions to the lives of others, and our own merits, is the best deal we can hope for, like neocons?

What is the mechanism that puts selfishness in check?

The social contract.

Other people's selfishness? The notion that it is all put in check by some "invisible" unwritten law is ludicrous. Maybe we should do away with laws in general. Maybe we all would benefit from "naturally" being put in check? The idea that everyone should act selfishly is a scheme that benefits the few to the detriment of the many.

I think people, when they grow up and get eductated, rationally accept that society needs rules.

It is a consequence of a society to require intelligent, long-term planning as a qualifier to engage in selfish endeavours.

That's sort of what a business plan is. Business people are the real planners of society.

 

[shadrack]

I'm saying cooperation with other entities is judged by the individual as having either a positive or negative consequence, and the indidual either continues or desists cooperation based on this assessment.

That didn't address my question of whether it was good.

The basic social cooperation contract is enforced by government and contains at it's core, an assignnment of a socially validated moral negative value to the activities deemed as "crimes". Are you with me so far?

The social contract doesn't just place a negative value on crimes. If it were that simple, it would then give license to every other immoral activity that happened to not be a crime.

Thus the main question in government and politics is "What are the terms of the social contract?"

I think that there is an underlying element of moralistic fallacy in your thinking. Or you have no concern with morality.

Do we expect the government to satisfy our envy by sticking it to the rich, like libs?

Are you sure it's envy? And are you sure some conservatives(I don't mean neocons) don't agree with some of the "libs"(socialist? I don't know exactly who you mean here) thinking?

Or do recognize that the freedom to survive or perish based on our contributions to the lives of others, and our own merits, is the best deal we can hope for, like neocons?

What is to cause a person to come to the conclusion that contributions to the lives of others is in his best interest? Profits? A person's profits alone don't have positive impact on the lives of another. What if those profits are deposited and not reinvested? What if those profits are invested into a sector that doesn't benefit the person or people who enabled those profits?

I think people, when they grow up and get eductated, rationally accept that society needs rules.

No one can argue with that.

That's sort of what a business plan is. Business people are the real planners of society.

Very few dispute the need for leadership.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That didn't address my question of whether it was good.

"Good" depends on your attitude towards survival I suppose. Some on the left think humanity already uses more than it's fair share of resources and should be paired back, hence the reason I say environmentalism is essentially an anti-human event. But back to the question of selfishness being good. It is. But we structure this selfishness into market competitions, people are rewarded (profit), when they serve the needs of others (their products are bought and sold) . The more efficient they are and the better their products the more profit they make. What we have deemed to be unacceptable ways of making profit, such as beating someone over the head, and taking their cash, or white collar fraud we call crime. We have made a decision as a society to only allow certain forms of open competetion. We have decided to disallow physical competition, killing each other for food, and have instead opted for a system where rationality, foresight, restraint and cooperation are preferred.

The social contract doesn't just place a negative value on crimes. If it were that simple, it would then give license to every other immoral activity that happened to not be a crime.

Some think it does. They're called liberals. They mock family values.

I think that there is an underlying element of moralistic fallacy in your thinking. Or you have no concern with morality.

Please point out the alleged moralistic fallacy. Or is this just a smokescreen of words you spout out when you have nothing to say of value?

Are you sure it's envy? And are you sure some conservatives(I don't mean neocons) don't agree with some of the "libs"(socialist? I don't know exactly who you mean here) thinking?



What is to cause a person to come to the conclusion that contributions to the lives of others is in his best interest? Profits? A person's profits alone don't have positive impact on the lives of another. What if those profits are deposited and not reinvested? What if those profits are invested into a sector that doesn't benefit the person or people who enabled those profits?

People are grateful for a market need served well, cheaply and efficiently. Providing the things we all need is a service to humanityl
God Bless Sam's Club, WalMart, and the Holy Spirit!

 

[shadrack]

"Good" depends on your attitude towards survival I suppose. Some on the left think humanity already uses more than it's fair share of resources and should be paired back, hence the reason I say environmentalism is essentially an anti-human event. But back to the question of selfishness being good. It is. But we structure this selfishness into market competitions, people are rewarded (profit), when they serve the needs of others (their products are bought and sold) . The more efficient they are and the better their products the more profit they make. What we have deemed to be unacceptable ways of making profit, such as beating someone over the head, and taking their cash, or white collar fraud we call crime. We have made a decision as a society to only allow certain forms of open competetion. We have decided to disallow physical competition, killing each other for food, and have instead opted for a system where rationality, foresight, restraint and cooperation are preferred.

Stay focused, we're not talking about killing another person for food.

If success of a certain product over another happened to be more dependent on salesmanship than actual product value, would you consider this to have a positive effect on the market?

What if there were claims made during the sale that were deceptive but not illegal? Could this be good?

Some think it does. They're called liberals. They mock family values.

I don't mock family values. Except for yourself, everyone thinks that the social contract should include values. Ever heard the line "To promote the general welfare" ??

Please point out the alleged moralistic fallacy. Or is this just a smokescreen of words you spout out when you have nothing to say of value?

You can't make direct deductions from human nature about what "ought" or "ought not" be. You seem to have the sense that a person has a moral duty to pursue their own interests. This is a fallacy. In fact, encouraging everyone to act on self-interest will result in a self-defeating paradox because interests overlap.

Jefferson wrote of selfishness - "It is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others."

People are grateful for a market need served well, cheaply and efficiently. Providing the things we all need is a service to humanityl
God Bless Sam's Club, WalMart, and the Holy Spirit!

Wal-mart serves its profits by selling poorly made imported goods, paying low wages, often not providing good health insurance, and often causing tax increases. These are all part of a strategy to serve their own interests. Offset expenses to the detriment of others. It is a tactic called "externalizing costs".



btw, I live in an area surrounded by some of the cleanest lakes, rivers, and streams in the nation. I fish the waters and hunt the ground. And I can tell you from my experience cleanliness in the environment is a virtue.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Stay focused, we're not talking about killing another person for food.

We're talking about standards of behavior.

If success of a certain product over another happened to be more dependent on salesmanship than actual product value, would you consider this to have a positive effect on the market?

The point is that the consumer makes his own decision and there is not an authoritarian entity deciding "what's best" like you seem to desire.

What if there were claims made during the sale that were deceptive but not illegal? Could this be good?

No. not good. That's why we have laws against deceptive advertising.

I don't mock family values. Except for yourself, everyone thinks that the social contract should include values. Ever heard the line "To promote the general welfare" ??

The general welfare is such an open ended, ambiguous term. Glittering generality much?

You can't make direct deductions from human nature about what "ought" or "ought not" be.

That's what your doing with your unfounded belief that "selfishness is bad". You're ignoring millions of years of previous proveable fact in preference for a nice, yet wrong, idea, a meaningless glittering generality.

You seem to have the sense that a person has a moral duty to pursue their own interests. This is a fallacy. In fact, encouraging everyone to act on self-interest will result in a self-defeating paradox because interests overlap.

I see no paradox. The rules of society dictate what behaviors result in needs being served. Do we allow people to lay around claiming historical victimhood, or do we make them contribute?

Jefferson wrote of selfishness - "It is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others."

Sometimes this is true. The most selfish are those who use the power of government to steal from others.

Most libs have an inverted notion of greed, such as yourself.

Wal-mart serves its profits by selling poorly made imported goods, paying low wages, often not providing good health insurance, and often causing tax increases. These are all part of a strategy to serve their own interests. Offset expenses to the detriment of others. It is a tactic called "externalizing costs".

I know all about externalized costs, it's where communism has invaded the field of accounting. There's a reason costs of consumption are called costs of consumption and not costs of production.

Oh and walmart shops the world for us, bringing us high quality goods and services at cheap prices. I bet the refugees in darfur would love a wal mart about now.

btw, I live in an area surrounded by some of the cleanest lakes, rivers, and streams in the nation. I fish the waters and hunt the ground. And I can tell you from my experience cleanliness in the environment is a virtue.

Ok. Johnny Appleseed.

 

[shadrack]

The point is that the consumer makes his own decision and there is not an authoritarian entity deciding "what's best" like you seem to desire.

Well, that's not what I desire.

Let me ask you another question. Value judgement is the sole responsibility of the consumer? So, when a product is viewed as lesser quality than its competition, businesses should promote that product as better?

Is a business person obligated to do what is best for the market and to make moral judgements that reflect the interest of the market?

No. not good. That's why we have laws against deceptive advertising.

There are many forms of deception. Not all forms are explicitly written out in law. And because of the exploitation of the loopholes in law, they get away with it.

The general welfare is such an open ended, ambiguous term. Glittering generality much?

It proves that the social contract is more than just about "crime" as you tried to claim!!

That's what your doing with your unfounded belief that "selfishness is bad". You're ignoring millions of years of previous proveable fact in preference for a nice, yet wrong, idea, a meaningless glittering generality.

You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying selfishness in and of itself can not be given moral value as you are doing. I can quote you in one of your posts - "But back to the question of selfishness being good. It is."

You can't say selfishness is good. Some acts may result in good that are caused by the human instict of survival, but you can not deduce from that fact that selfishness is good. The act must be given value and not the fact.

I see no paradox. The rules of society dictate what behaviors result in needs being served. Do we allow people to lay around claiming historical victimhood, or do we make them contribute?

Every person should contribute in some way to the betterment of society.

Sometimes this is true. The most selfish are those who use the power of government to steal from others.

Most libs have an inverted notion of greed, such as yourself.

I'm just trying to understand your position.

I know all about externalized costs, it's where communism has invaded the field of accounting. There's a reason costs of consumption are called costs of consumption and not costs of production.

And your opinion on the so called corporate welfare would be?

Ok. Johnny Appleseed.

 

[dmp]

RW - Give it up - check out Hobbit's signature...learn from it.

(sigh)....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well, that's not what I desire.

Seems like it is what you desire.

Let me ask you another question. Value judgement is the sole responsibility of the consumer? So, when a product is viewed as lesser quality than its competition, businesses should promote that product as better?

Judgements regarding product superiority should be up to individual consumers. Blatant lies in advertising should not be tolerated. But actors issuing statements of opinion is harmless.

Is a business person obligated to do what is best for the market and to make moral judgements that reflect the interest of the market?

Best for which market? The market in general? Could you please refine this question.

There are many forms of deception. Not all forms are explicitly written out in law. And because of the exploitation of the loopholes in law, they get away with it.

So would you like to oulaw all advertising?

It proves that the social contract is more than just about "crime" as you tried to claim!!

Dude, you're swinging at phantoms. I'm saying religion is just one form of conveying the terms of the social contract. Get your head on straight and come back when you have a point.

You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying selfishness in and of itself can not be given moral value as you are doing. I can quote you in one of your posts - "But back to the question of selfishness being good. It is."

Greed is.
I'm not giving it a moral value. I'm acknowledging it's reality as the core motivator of each individual. As such it should be acknowledged and understood instead of villified and targetted for elimination in the next set of leftist reforms.

You can't say selfishness is good. Some acts may result in good that are caused by the human instict of survival, but you can not deduce from that fact that selfishness is good. The act must be given value and not the fact.

The act, not the fact. Did jessie jackson write that for you? Or johnnie cochran.

Yes. selfishness can lead to immoral acts, that's why we focus our actions into prosocial means of need satisfaction. What are the acceptable actions to satify needs? Back to the social contract. Are you getting it now?

Every person should contribute in some way to the betterment of society.

Should? That seems rather prescriptive and closed minded.

I'm just trying to understand your position.

Good for you.

And your opinion on the so called corporate welfare would be?

I'm generally against it, though if you believe in subsidizing in general, why do libs only want to subsidize at the individual level, instead of sooner in the cycle of failure, before their business fails? Keeping the business together and everyone working may be psychologically easier to handle then letting everyone hit the streets, go home, lay on the couch, feel depressed, start watching Regis and Kelly, and become democrats. Oh wait I see!

 

[relaxing909]

do any of you believe in evolution?
is it possible that god created everything (all animals) and evolved this earth continuously as he grew tired with each stage?

all humans have animalistic behavior (wants, needs, desires).
thats why we have hate, love, passion, etc.
because it derives from animal wants, needs, desires.


to control all of that, once the age of christ was born, they wrote morals, rights and wrongs, in a book for all of us to follow. to keep us all in line.
to control us. to conform us. to evolve from our primal beginning.

we have right and wrong born within us.. but it's up to us to use it accordingly.
society plays a big role in our desires, etc.
our intelligence influences our behavior as well.

i hope there is a higher being of somekind.
i don't necessarily believe its god (the christian god) as the sole god.

but i do believe that evolution has played a big role in our existence..
yes, a god might have created us.. but he evolved us as well, over time.

 

[shadrack]

Judgements regarding product superiority should be up to individual consumers. Blatant lies in advertising should not be tolerated. But actors issuing statements of opinion is harmless.

Statements of opinion, even if true, can be ordered to be changed by a court.

Best for which market? The market in general? Could you please refine this question.

I want to understand your view of moral duty. Let me ask it this way. Is a person only accountable to those who contribute to his interest?

Dude, you're swinging at phantoms. I'm saying religion is just one form of conveying the terms of the social contract. Get your head on straight and come back when you have a point.

HA! Nice save.

Greed is.
I'm not giving it a moral value. I'm acknowledging it's reality as the core motivator of each individual. As such it should be acknowledged and understood instead of villified and targetted for elimination in the next set of leftist reforms.

Greed is what? I thought survival was your claim of the core motivator. Now it's greed?

Greed is a deliberate act. How can you not assign a value to it? Here's the answer - Greed is not good. To act solely on one's self-interest initiates a series of events that become paradoxical. Ever heard of the dollar auction?

The act, not the fact. Did jessie jackson write that for you? Or johnnie cochran.

Displaying a little racial tension, are ya?

Yes. selfishness can lead to immoral acts, that's why we focus our actions into prosocial means of need satisfaction. What are the acceptable actions to satify needs? Back to the social contract. Are you getting it now?

It?...............Yes, I think I'm getting you.

Should? That seems rather prescriptive and closed minded.

It's not closed minded. With rights come duty. Unlike you, I know what a social contract is. As much as you wish, liberty is not free.

I'm generally against it, though if you believe in subsidizing in general, why do libs only want to subsidize at the individual level, instead of sooner in the cycle of failure, before their business fails? Keeping the business together and everyone working may be psychologically easier to handle then letting everyone hit the streets, go home, lay on the couch, feel depressed, start watching Regis and Kelly, and become democrats. Oh wait I see!

HA! I'm not too keen on greedy, self-interested politicians. Either side.

You seem very concerned with holding the lowest income class accountable.

Who should a person hold accountable when that person works two jobs($12 total), pays high rent, pays high child care expense, and doesn't have enough time in the day to provide the emotional support their children needs in order for them to become a productive member of society?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Statements of opinion, even if true, can be ordered to be changed by a court.

I'm talking about the fictitious opinions of actors in commercials. What are you talking about?

I want to understand your view of moral duty. Let me ask it this way. Is a person only accountable to those who contribute to his interest?

No. We have a duty to not gain benefit from others through force or fraud, but through financial transactions and contracts mutually agreed upon by both sides. See, greed is cleansed by focusing it into a prosocial framework.

Greed is what? I thought survival was your claim of the core motivator. Now it's greed?

Greed just is. That's all. I'm saying it exists. It may lead to immoral acts, hence why we temper it's passions with social rules. (i.e. no fighting, no killing, no stealin).

Greed is a deliberate act. How can you not assign a value to it? Here's the answer - Greed is not good. To act solely on one's self-interest initiates a series of events that become paradoxical. Ever heard of the dollar auction?

Greed can lead to immoral acts, but we focus this greed with societies rules. See my above comments.

You seem very concerned with holding the lowest income class accountable.

They should be held accountable for whatever is their fault.

Who should a person hold accountable when that person works two jobs($12 total), pays high rent, pays high child care expense, and doesn't have enough time in the day to provide the emotional support their children needs in order for them to become a productive member of society?

It sounds like this individual made some bad decisions. He will make it through though, if his character is not corroded through government handouts and bureacratically lowered expectations.

 

[shadrack]

I'm talking about the fictitious opinions of actors in commercials. What are you talking about?

In an effort to cause others to enter into a transaction agreement, any opinion stated, even if true, can be viewed as deceptive by a court.

No. We have a duty to not gain benefit from others through force or fraud, but through financial transactions and contracts mutually agreed upon by both sides. See, greed is cleansed by focusing it into a prosocial framework.

What about gaming schemes?

Greed just is. That's all. I'm saying it exists. It may lead to immoral acts, hence why we temper it's passions with social rules. (i.e. no fighting, no killing, no stealin).

Greed can lead to immoral acts, but we focus this greed with societies rules. See my above comments.

Like I said before or actually let me be more clear than before......there is an underlying element of moral fallacy in your logic. You can't deduce an "ought" from an "is". ex - Because greed exists(is) doesn't mean it is acceptable(ought). Greed is a choice to try to gain more when you have enough. If you don't want to place a value on human acts outside of the most extreme examples, that's a problem. How else can a person determine if what they do is good or right or just? Stealing exists also. Should we accept stealing as a just way for a person to act?

Generalities that suggest we should "all" do what is our best interest are ludicrous. What is in a person's "best interest" is to eliminate all competition using whatever means available to gain enough power to be above the law and not have to worry over the "petty" concerns of others, ie, neocon philosophy. They are just as ludicrous as communism and its general duty of self-sacrifice beyond the requirements of moral duty. You know there are fundamental principles of morality, don't you?

They should be held accountable for whatever is their fault.


It sounds like this individual made some bad decisions. He will make it through though, if his character is not corroded through government handouts and bureacratically lowered expectations.

His will may become erroded by his lack of hope to ever gain a voice loud enough to hold corporate greed accountable. Leaders are accountable to many people, not just the ones that are the most outspoken (share holders, the well-to-do). But there can be no effective control of the corporations when they are in bed with the politicians - which is the principle cause of the lack of proper accountability in this country. In 1910 T. Roosevelt said there should be an end put to these corrupt political affairs.......still waiting.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In an effort to cause others to enter into a transaction agreement, any opinion stated, even if true, can be viewed as deceptive by a court.


What about gaming schemes?


Like I said before or actually let me be more clear than before......there is an underlying element of moral fallacy in your logic. You can't deduce an "ought" from an "is". ex - Because greed exists(is) doesn't mean it is acceptable(ought). Greed is a choice to try to gain more when you have enough. If you don't want to place a value on human acts outside of the most extreme examples, that's a problem. How else can a person determine if what they do is good or right or just? Stealing exists also. Should we accept stealing as a just way for a person to act?

Generalities that suggest we should "all" do what is our best interest are ludicrous. What is in a person's "best interest" is to eliminate all competition using whatever means available to gain enough power to be above the law and not have to worry over the "petty" concerns of others, ie, neocon philosophy. They are just as ludicrous as communism and its general duty of self-sacrifice beyond the requirements of moral duty. You know there are fundamental principles of morality, don't you?


His will may become erroded by his lack of hope to ever gain a voice loud enough to hold corporate greed accountable. Leaders are accountable to many people, not just the ones that are the most outspoken (share holders, the well-to-do). But there can be no effective control of the corporations when they are in bed with the politicians - which is the principle cause of the lack of proper accountability in this country. In 1910 T. Roosevelt said there should be an end put to these corrupt political affairs.......still waiting.

What is the fallacy? I'm saying moral systems which embrace reality, what is, are more practical and possible.

Neocon philosophy is using law and order to temper and transmute the selfish urge.

"Greed is wanting more when you have enough" Enough for how long, an hour? It's pretty expensive to send kids to college and buy a home, is wanting these things greed. Is it greedy to want to be able to retire.

I've obviously devastated your worldview to the point where you're running on fumes, saying outrageous things, spitting our bizarre combiations of words. I think you need a nap.

An overpowerful government scares me more than overpowerful corporations. Governments use guns to accomplish their goals, businesses must appeal to a consumer's wants and needs, and competition between like corporations makes them both better and more responsive to people; plus corruption is limited at least to the extent that it will damage the corporation in the marketplace. Monopolistic governments do whatever they want and lie about the results through their state run media.