Re: god

["Ronald H. Evans" <ronald_evans@pipeline.com>]

>Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 13:52:46 -0400
>To: "MICHAEL ZAINO" <mz3096@student.law.duke.edu>
>From: "Ronald H. Evans" <ronald_evans@pipeline.com>
>Subject: Re: god
>
>At 12:26 PM 7/27/97 EST, you wrote:
>>Greed is not necessarily a bad thing, nor do I positive that Jordan 
>>is being greedy. Would you prefer that Jordan play for say $1MM? 
>>That doesn't seem like a bad bargain for Jordan, or does it? If he 
>>plays for $1MM, that means Jerry Reinsdorf (a much more detestable 
>>figure than Jordan) makes, say hypothetically, $39MM. Now is this a 
>>good deal for Jordan? Of course not. Negotiation is about finding a 
>>happy medium. 
>
>I was talking about how Jordan's money indicated a larger pattern. Yes,
Jerry is detestable and yes, I would rather Jordan have the money, but I
don't like what it indicates as a whole. It is an expression of attempting
to help oneself at the expense of others. Something I'm not sure I like. 
>
>
>Both Reinsdorf and Jordan are entitled to their fair 
>>share and it is up to them to determine what is fair; not you or I. 
>>As for greed, of course each of these people as an ego and both need 
>>to feed that ego. What you call "trying to get ahead", I call 
>>competition. It drives us, both as individual's and as a nation. The 
>>very thing that you detest (getting ahead) on an individual level, is 
>>what you are implicitly calling for a national level. Do you want 
>>America to "get ahead" of other countries? You do mention  all of 
>>humanity.  If we all work toward "humanity", we will never 
>>accomplish it, or even come as close as we do under a system of 
>>competition. 
>
>Greed is always a moral evil because resources are finite. The persuit of
large quantities of money(or any material resource) always creates a
disparity between the "haves" and the "have-nots". If humans were solitary
and did not adhere to certain code of ethics, the constant acquisition of
material goods at the expense of others would be acceptable. But since
humans are communal and like to consider themselves part of a greater
whole(i.e. America), acquisition at the expense of individual Americans or
the country as a whole is morally evil. 
>        Competition is something different. Competing to be your best in a
certain field or game is acceptable if you don't impinge upon the freedoms
of others to do it. 
>        The inherent problem lies in the fact that humans try to keep more
than their fair share in order to live a life of luxury. Yes, they have in
some way shape or form earned this money, but does that justify their living
in excess while others live in squalor? Let's say for instance that instead
of Jordan making  40mil or Bill Gates having ~30bil? they get around 1
million dollars a year for their contributions. Then the rest of their money
is divvied up in terms of raises to the other working Americans. Reducing
the disparity of income while still compensating for people of talent and
drive would still emphasize competition while alleviating many social ills.
>        America does not benifit by greed but it does by competition. Greed
only benefits the indivdual. People who are greedy do what they do not for
the good of the country but for their own personal gain. If helping America
serves their interest they will and if it doesn't they won't. Competition to
be the best, and a sense of community--sacrificing for the good of the
country instead of surfeiting our own needs and desires-- is the true path
to success --if someone really wants America to "get ahead"-- not greed.
>        
>BTW this is in no way a personal attack
>
>Responses welcomed 
>
>Noah
>