I know some people who operate mainly with their primal brain.
Great article. Really well written.
It's arguable whether or not it's good for society to act according to our drives. Survival of the fittest and all that. Generally, these 'greedy' hunters look after their nearest and dearest who become stronger and fitter as a result. Everything is a competition. People -- wherever they are in the food chain -- strive to outcompete others. It's just nature. In an ideal world we'd extend this goodwill to our wider communities, but while there are 'greedy' people operating covertly underneath, this allows them better opportunities to exploit us.
Even if you look at history, the most pious and 'altruistic' people had some pretty dark drives: Mother Theresa, Ghandi, the most recent pope...
Here's my take on how to operate for a better life for you and your nearest:
https://steemit.com/business/@anjkara/10-commandments-plus-some-free-bonus-ones-for-winners
Thanks for reading @anjkara. You took some words out of my mouth, I almost added natural selection into my post, but later changed my mind. I might still add it though. My view on the term greed was discussed looking at the general perspective on society.
Biologically, Drive is very good. take a look at that movie: Wolf of Wallstreet. we have been able to romanticize primal instincts in the business world. but the truth is one shouldn't dwell too much on primal instincts, or you could get burned or burn those around you. There has to be a balance. Take a look at the business world you'll see lawsuits in billions and shady things that have been exposed. If we try to normalize greed, It could result in general moral decay of society.
Are you sure one of the hunters will not sabotage his fellow hunters to become the top dog and get more riches? 100% on drive and instincts could easily turn into greed.
I think acting solely based on drives is not Ideal in society as a whole, there is a reason why we have evolved to use higher brain functions.
We all have a dark side. those people you stated also have one, infact I support that. the world is not all rainbows and sunshine. but did those people act solely on those dark instincts or did they find a balance and were able to impact society in a positive light.
Hiya Abmakko. Thanks for getting back to me :)
I don't think people operate 100% on their primal drives (unless they have a mental illness). The most successful use a combination of front and hind brain. There has to be strategy and intelligence to go with brawn and might or their genes would be long gone too.
Yes, some hunters will sabotage other hunters to gain the advantage. In every society there are people who will cheat to win. Although not everyone does this, it is a normal aspect of our society. Just as it's normal to find empathic and kind people too. We're just a mixed bag. But the strongest will win (or die trying).
Those 'altruistic' people listed did what they did primarily to further their own positions. The pope and Ghandi were/are paedophiles, Mother Theresa preached the glory of poverty and suffering while jetting around the world in private planes, dining with billionaires and enjoying state-of-the-art medical treatment near the end of her life. They simply took advantage of society's wishes for the world to be a better place.
Best wishes
Anj x
I didn't know about the crimes of pope/Gandhi, but by your explanation, those crimes don't fall under greed but morality.
Again, normalizing Greed will cause a moral decay of society. There is a reason we have moral and civic rules in society.
I have watched documentaries of Christopher Hitchens exposing the greed of mother Theresa. like I said to my other friend in the comments when an individual does something selfish that harms society they eventually get exposed. If its a normal aspect of society why did Christopher Hitchens go through the trouble of exposing her to the world.
I need to know what you mean by normal aspect of society. do you mean normal as in accepted? because I don't think those traits are accepted by the majority, even though it occurs.
and also what do you mean by win, do you mean success? because success can be defined differently from person to person. some people are genuinely happy with their simple life while some are not still happy with their tall mansions. I don't see society as a do or die affair.
I truly understand your Machiavellian principles expecially from that post. It is important to protect ourselfs. I have my own moral codes but I don't impose them on other people, Infact I assume they don't have the same moral codes as me. but I still take note of the moral acceptable codes of society. Thats how to protect oneself in this world.
They fall in the morality category too. Positioning yourself to enjoy all the wealth of the Catholic Church doesn't strike you as greedy too? Yes, with Ghandi, his motivations were a little more on the seedy side than the greedy side.
All those rules were created by powerful people to keep the plebs in their place. Many of the powerful don't live by those same rules. Nor do they uphold those morals.
Christopher Hitchens was a journalist. It was probably part of his job. He's known for hating hypocrisy (and religion). Mother Theresa was probably a good choice for him.
Normal: I mean human psychology falls on a very broad spectrum. It's normal for some people to be selfish and greedy. The majority don't have to accept or like this. It's just a fact. It doesn't change no matter how anyone feels about it.
Moral: What's moral to me might be immoral to another. Eg: I like eating meat. Some vegans think I'm immoral for doing this. I'm aware of the moral codes. If we're to get by in 'society', there are certain things we have to do or not do (if we are the plebs).
Win: I agree with you. Everyone views winning and success personally.
I don't have Machiavellian principles. Just exercising my brain :D
My topic was speaking on greed in society. those crimes of pope/Gandhi doesn't fall specifically under greed. we never knew their intentions we only know their deeds. through their deeds, they committed crimes against morality. which is not what my discussion/post is primarily about.
A journalist exposes the truth. the truth about someone's greed. which is not acceptable to society that is the bottom line.
Is greed good for the society? that is the question. the answer is capital NO. you can sight examples of when the human drive has benefitted society. but if those examples benefited society they cannot be classified under greed anymore. If you read my definition of greed you would see where I highlighted selfish(only for one's self) and excessive(harmful to others).
I have no argument with that morality definition, as I have said the same thing earlier. although that example you gave is a bit localized and not a general view of society. we all know the general rules like: do not cheat, do not lie, etc.
we are all free to act as we like, If one chooses to not follow the moral rules of the general society they could face scrutiny from society, even those powerful people you talked about also are not invisible from this, as I said earlier, If you take a look at the buisness/corporate world you would see lawsuits and scandals in billions.
I apply some machaevali principles in my live, not to inflict or hurt others but just to protect myself. for instance I would never cheat, but I can easily assume that someone else could cheat so I take necessary precaution. I got that feeling from that post thats why i mentioned.
I'm enjoying this discussion though :-)
I love that post you sent me, It takes to note some Machiavellian principles. one cannot be too nice or naive about the world we live in. 👍
thanks abmakko. I really enjoyed reading your post too :D
Anj x