When Did Things Go To Pot?

[Admiral Yi]

What is the point of comments like this?

It's like saying that we could reduce depression if depressed people just quit being so unhappy.

OK. I guess it would be great if we could just change human nature by feeling smug, but given that apparently that doesn't really work, doesn't it make more sense to talk about how to make a workable society given that people are in fact greedy and often irrationally envious?

The point of comments like this is to present an alternative view of the issue, but I imagine you already knew that, and asked the question as a rhetorical device to express your outrage.

It's nothing like saying depressed people should just be happy, because depression is a chemical condition.  AFAICT, envy is not a chemical condition.

That envy is an unalterable part of human nature is an assumption that I don't share.  There appear to be people in the world who are not envious of others.  Do they suffer from a lack of human nature?

[Oexmelin]

That envy is an unalterable part of human nature is an assumption that I don't share.  There appear to be people in the world who are not envious of others.  Do they suffer from a lack of human nature?

No, much like there are many people in the world who aren't greedy. But our legal and economic systems are built upon assumptions about human nature, rewarding certain behavior, and condemning others. In this instance, why condemn envy, but not greed? Why is one something someone ought to get over, and the other something that ought to be left alone?

[grumbler]

The point of comments like this is to present an alternative view of the issue, but I imagine you already knew that, and asked the question as a rhetorical device to express your outrage.

It's nothing like saying depressed people should just be happy, because depression is a chemical condition.  AFAICT, envy is not a chemical condition.

That envy is an unalterable part of human nature is an assumption that I don't share.  There appear to be people in the world who are not envious of others.  Do they suffer from a lack of human nature?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.  You have a bunch of random statements that don't amount to an argument, let alone "an alternative view of the issue."  Whether "envy is an unalterable part of human nature" or not seems out in left field - we are talking about the effects of perceived unfairness, and what it would take to eliminate envy doesn't seem germane.  Problems aren't solved by telling people "get over it."

[grumbler]

No, much like there are many people in the world who aren't greedy. But our legal and economic systems are built upon assumptions about human nature, rewarding certain behavior, and condemning others. In this instance, why condemn envy, but not greed? Why is one something someone ought to get over, and the other something that ought to be left alone?

I don't think that the issue with the Porshe and Mercedes is an issue of envy, it is an issue of perceived unfairness.  "I don't envy my boss for having a better car, I resent the fact that he got the job when I was better-qualified for it."  Income inequality isn't always an issue - some footballers make more in a month than i will in my life, but I don't resent their salaries because they can do something at the highest level that I struggle to do at the lowest.   It irritates me when CEOs get that kind of money because I know that you could get a bunch of guys who could do that job for 1/10 the salary.

[Admiral Yi]

No, much like there are many people in the world who aren't greedy. But our legal and economic systems are built upon assumptions about human nature, rewarding certain behavior, and condemning others. In this instance, why condemn envy, but not greed? Why is one something someone ought to get over, and the other something that ought to be left alone?

Because greed is the handmaiden of ambition, drive, motivation, and work.  Greed produces output that increases the utility of people that consume that output.

[Oexmelin]

I don't think that the issue with the Porshe and Mercedes is an issue of envy, it is an issue of perceived unfairness. 

Fair point. I read recently an interesting essay attempting to distinguish the varieties of envy, between envy for a situation in which one could conceivably imagine oneself in (i.e., winning the lottery), envy for someone's ability (related to your footballer's example), and envy for things that are actively being put out of reach (a contentious inheritance, for instance). Part of the author's point was that envy relies on a sentiment of equality, which in our democratic regimes is equated to unfairness - medieval peasants could resent the powerful for being powerful, but they couldn't really be envious, because their world would never have made it possible for them to either enjoy, reach, or even imagine themselves in such situations (and therefore, it wouldn't be labelled as unfair).   

[Oexmelin]

Because greed is the handmaiden of ambition, drive, motivation, and work.  Greed produces output that increases the utility of people that consume that output.

I disagree, but for the sake of argument, how do you reconcile that with your condemnation of envy? How can greed mean anything other than through comparisons with others?

[Admiral Yi]

I disagree, but for the sake of argument, how do you reconcile that with your condemnation of envy? How can greed mean anything other than through comparisons with others?

I can prefer the taste of lobster over ramen noodles without any reference to others.  If I was the last human on earth I would still prefer lobster

[Oexmelin]

I can prefer the taste of lobster over ramen noodles without any reference to others.  If I was the last human on earth I would still prefer lobster

Again, disregarding the fact that lobster and ramen noodles have never existed outside of a frame of reference that have profoundly intertwined pleasure with meaning, what profound, inherent preference is being expressed by your 7th luxury car? By your 15th million dollars, that the 14th could not assuage?

[PDH]

If I was the last human on earth I would still prefer lobster

If I were the last human on earth I would prefer whatever gives me enough calories to continue.  Lobster or spam, it is not that important - I prefer to live, not to taste...

[Admiral Yi]

Again, disregarding the fact that lobster and ramen noodles have never existed outside of a frame of reference that have profoundly intertwined pleasure with meaning, what profound, inherent preference is being expressed by your 7th luxury car? By your 15th million dollars, that the 14th could not assuage?

I give up.

Are you proposing a society in which you and I (standing in for the majority) decide which preferences are profound and inherent and which are not and disallow the former?

[Oexmelin]

Are you proposing a society in which you and I (standing in for the majority) decide which preferences are profound and inherent and which are not and disallow the former?

I don't understand how that follows. I know of no preference that emerges out of nothing. If greed has emerged to be the motor of ambition, it is precisely because we live in a monetized world, and thus accumulation allows for superiority of status over others. The people who want to be filthy rich do so because of how it makes them exist in the gaze of others, not because they somehow prefer having 256 millions instead of 255.

How you can simultaneously condemn envy, and celebrate ambition thus seems to be fundamentally contradictory. If you want a world based on greed, you have to celebrate envy. If you don't want a world based on envy, then you have to celebrate for form of renunciation that seems incompatible with greed. Some form of severe redistribution, for instance.

What I am proposing is simply the essence of democracy: recognizing that our preferences are, in fact, the result of our constant interactions, at times severely constrained by our social status, and that we therefore collectively, and politically, decide on what sorts of preferences ought to be favored, and which one ought to be deterred. If you prefer blue over red surely has some effect on me, but it is orders of magnitude different from your "preference" to move your inherited fortune offshore.

[Berkut]

Is it just me, or is Yi's response basically "Let them eat cake"?

[Admiral Yi]

How you can simultaneously condemn envy, and celebrate ambition thus seems to be fundamentally contradictory. If you want a world based on greed, you have to celebrate envy. If you don't want a world based on envy, then you have to celebrate for form of renunciation that seems incompatible with greed. Some form of severe redistribution, for instance.

You seem to be missing some intermediate logical steps here, so I'll fill in what I think the blanks are and you can tell me if I'm right or I'm off.

Greed is, at least in part, driven by the desire for status.  I do not dispute this.  According status to others is synonymous with envy.  Status cannot exist without envy.

Tell me if I'm right, because I already have my objections loaded up.

[Threviel]

Just to be clear, I did not mean to advocate some kind of communism or something like that. My thought is that perhaps even though it is ethically questionable perhaps there should be more in the way of progressive taxation, wealth tax, property tax, inheritance tax or income tax or something else. As to how much and at what level and what kind, let some professional calculate that.