Greed (Paper)

Inherent greed is, much like inherent value, an abstract, insupportable idea. In order for greed to be inherent it must be able to remain the same object in everyday life as well as in a complete vacuum. This is not a viable position for the following reasons: it is ever affected by human ideas and ideals, it is a contextual concept, and it is a creation of emotion put into words by human minds. For these reasons greed has, for the vast majority always been a word with a dark connotation, describing someone or some action that seems to be divergent from their beliefs. In this sense environmentalists have a long history of decrying the business world, among others, for their selfish and self serving ends in essentially raping the environment. While this may be true is some sense and from some perspectives it is not, by far, a universal Truth. Greed as defined by Miriam-Webster Dictionary: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed. This need has indeed led into a serious conflict between humans and the environment. Surprisingly enough however is that it might also be the beginning of a recovery leading to a better situation both for the inhabitants of the Earth and the Earth itself. Greed, therefore is contextual in its meaning and, among the more compelling human actions, has the capability of being one of mans lowest driving forces, that of self betterment.

One of the most ideal situations for a relationship between The Earth and Humanity is the principle of Stewardship in which humans see themselves as custodians of the earth instead of the earth being subjected to the wanton Wants of our desire. This stewardship is easily justifiable as a good business model. The past trend of simply taking from the earth what we need and not caring about its long term survival was less than solid in an economic sense. We were living for immediate gratification that in the end would have left both us and the earth worse off. While the businessmen of that time, as they always are and probably always will be, were motivated by turning a quite buck, perhaps in addition to slightly more altruistic motives, it soon became apparent that continuing the path of earthly destruction would no longer be accepted by the vast majority of people. This idea is particularly supported by 'Deep Ecologists'. This greed that drove business then however is still prevalent now. Businesses still strive to earn the most money while spending the least. To this end however stewardship is the best investment that can be made. Instead of creating machines and technology to deplete the earth to its breaking point business are now seeing the immense profit that can be made by investing in the welfare of the earth. Investment in renewable resources has been on the rise for the last decade. This trend shows not only a move towards helping the earth but also a move into an economically stable mind set for businesses. When an investment into solar energy is completed the investment would pay for itself over time and after the initial cost has been recouped become a fiscal money maker. In this way stewardship ethics is not only become morally responsible but also fiscally responsible by preserving the resource that is used to create profit and this urge to create profits is driven not by the selfless cause of conscience but by greed for that extra dollar, by greed.

This simplest way for the environmental crisis we find ourselves currently mired in is entirely mental in its formulation. With only a slight change of thinking on the part of many, the terrible costs that the earth has been made to bare on account of overzealous businesses and unconcerned humans could be entirely reversed with dramatic benefits not just for the earth but also for those attempting to gain a better social position in life through money. With the implementation of this change the world itself would, at the risk of sounding naive, become a better place. If people began to think of their actions in relation not just to themselves but to other people and other things around them then the human race would find themselves quietly sliding into roles of stewardship instead of remaining greed-driven. The immediate rewards in the short term would in fact perfectly coincide with the current attitude of 'me first' thinking. With realizing that people can be made happier by helping the planet by feeling proud of their accomplishments, the move from selfishness to stewardship is not a long road.

Along these sames lines, Emmanuel Kant, seen by some as an ardent advocate for animals to not have the same rights as humans, in essence creates a list of traits that reserve human rights for those that have rational thought, mobility, and inherent value. As with many other philosophers, the very idea of something having inherent value is plagued with a myriad of problems. In order for something to be valuable in and of itself it must be able to maintain this characteristic in a vacuum uninfluenced by any other object. In Kant's essay Rational Beings Alone Have Moral Worth, he advocates a system in which Humans, and Humans alone have wroth because they are intrinsically valuable. He says that we are “an end in itself” not merely a means for others to use or exploit to their own ends. He supports this idea by labeling everything that does not think rationally as things and everything that does think rationally as persons. Here he begins to exhibit the very anthropocentric view he has of the world. He goes further to use this view as a reason for humans to use anything not capable of rational thought for their own ends and he supposes that anything not able to rationally think for itself has value only as a conditional property that is contingent on a humans need for it. With this view he has given the world a view in which human needs, human greed, has become the central tenant by which we assign value to non-human entities.

Pushing the boundaries even further than Kant, Utilitarianism is a prime example of human greed especially as it interacts with nature. Many utilitarians, such as Peter Singer, contest that the best way in which to serve the environment is to simply act rationally without the interference of emotion. While on the surface this would appear to be an acceptable way of thinking it is, in fact, not. By creating a “weight-watchers” theory for human interaction Singer simply creates a system in which the person committing the action is able to step back easily and justify their actions with a simplified mathematical equation. For instance, one could easily justify cheating on ones spouse through utilitarian thinking. After the act of cheating the person justifying it might say that they became more relaxed afterward resulting in a (+1) effect for them. The same can be said of the person with which they had relations with resulting in an additional (+1). However the significant other of the cheater is devastated when they find out resulting in (-1). However, according to utilitarianism the overall outcome of the episode is a net effect of (+1) therefore making it a “good” practice. One can easily see how the same reasoning can be used in an environmental sense with Humans and nature interacting with business as the cheater. In this scenario, anyone sufficiently fluent in both utilitarianism and business could endlessly justify their actions on paper through a mathematical equation similar to the one above.

Among one of the more contentious ideas submitted by environmental philosophers is the idea of an Experiencing Subject of a Life (ESL) and their place in the world. Tom Regan is a major advocate of this idea. The problem with Regan's proposal is the fact that as a rational Human he has the ability to guarantee animals rights as ESLs but can reject other forms of life. This difficulty still retains that humans are at the top of the spectrum of life that can give or take away rights as easily as one might blink. This in turns leads to the thought that if humans are still at the head of the table of life, why do we remain there. The most obvious reason is because we, as humans, still retain rights for ourselves that create a better living. In other terminology we are basically greedy. We subject the other life forms of this earth to our own “rational” interpretation of what constitutes an ESL. In this way we are able to continue taking advantage of other life forms, plants for instance, that sustain us. The problem with this theory is that it has exactly the same problems as Contractarianism. Regan says that Contractarianism is arbitrary as it requires the metaphorical ability to sign a contract in order to be elevated to having rights. If an animal can't “sign the contract” then they are just out of luck and will continue to be viewed as resources for human consumption. This resource oriented view by humans in regard to nature is the central problem with humanity in respect to the environment. However, while he puts this problem forward as being backward in thought he actually advocates a system in which he is willing to accord rights to animals but not to any other life form. In this aspect he is both contradicting himself in theory as well as practice. While this may be so one must ask the paramount Socratic question: Why? Why would Regan want to include only some living things and not others while at the same time subjecting humans to the same rights as animals but still allowing humans to delegate who or what receives those rights. Once again we must welcome or trusty old friend greed to the stage. It is for greed and self image for which these mistakes are committed.

While advocating rights for all animals Regan still reserves the ability to award rights just for humans. In this way humans are still seated in that Zeus like chair at the pinnacle of the Pantheon. This image of humans as originators of rights still propels Regan to entitle us to more lucrative rights in order to maintain his ingrained ideas about life with humans centrally located. In addition to these problems the Idea of an ESL having inherent value poses a problem for many of the societal institutions of the world. For instance, when would it be appropriate to deprive a human of their rights? If it is whenever they harm another ESL then the animal world run into a huge problem for the same rules would have to apply to them as well. Any carnivorous animal would be deprived of right simply for engaging in actions that it considers required. A lion would be right-less for hunting, an instinct that has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years. Also part of this dilemma is figuring out who is responsible for taking these rights away. Would it be humans? It seems like Regan would attempt to make it so simply by the fact that we are the ones dispensing rights in the first place.

Perhaps one of the best explanations about humans and their desire to amass as much of anything they can is the late German born Philosopher, Erich Fromm. His headline work in relation to human greed is To Have Or To Be? In which he describes his two modes of humanity, having, a materialistic oriented thought process, and being, the emotional, productive mode of life. He states the the overwhelming majority of humanity is stuck in a having mode of life. This leads in turn to greed in which one try to achieve happiness through material wealth instead of intellectual thought. The being mode is something that he advocates as the ideal form of thought in which one does not have possession of things in a permanent manner but instead attempts to share with the world with others in our pursuit of happiness. This idea though is, in my opinion just as greed-driven as the having mode of being. That is not to say it would not better humanity to embrace his idea of being instead of having for it would drastically cut the amount of material possessions which we have. Instead it would substitute our desire for material possessions for those of ideological possessions. Instead of coveting the most up to date technology we would strive to acquire the latest thoughts and ideas. We would begin to envy people of higher intellect instead of people with more wealth. While this would certainly improve the lost of the earth in a very practical manner, i.e. trash, it would not help remove the idea of greed from the human psyche. It simply replaces it with something else.

Al Gore's treatise on environmental concerns proposes the idea that humans are simply addicted to abusing the environment. He explains that in order to leave our bad habit behind we must enter into a therapy course to change our mindset away from destroying the earth and instead preserving it. While his thesis is intriguing it is simplistic of its view of human nature and proposes and at its heart lies greed. In order for the world to continue and for our lives to continue we must take drastic action in the way that we think about the earth. Changing our philosophical outlook is indeed a requirement. However changing our view of the world is of immense benefit to ourselves. Our self-preservation is the driving force behind this required change. That is not to say that severing our addiction to abusing the earth by this means is a terrible thing. On the contrary it is a requirement. However when doing so it is necessary to be honest with ourselves. We must admit that the reason we are doing so and embrace greed as a power that will do “good”.

The core tenant of greed as exhibited by humans is closely tied to an overwhelming feeling of anthropocentrism. These two concepts correlate directly with each other with greed becoming the central offshoot of an anthropocentric mind. When a person sees the world as revolving around themselves and think that they have a a larger impact on the earth than anything else, that person comes to see the world in a largely anthropocentric way. As they continue to view the world in this way they are better suited to view the earth as merely a resource waiting to be plundered for their own personal benefit. This leads to serious problems when this person comes into a position to reap what the earth has, as in a business position or government position where they would have the direct ability to affect the earth over a large area. When found in this type of position these individuals would be more prepared to use the earth as a way to better themselves without considering the impact of their actions over a wider area. This greed driven decision stemmed from the way that they view the world, through anthropocentric eyes.

In all the majority of philosophers currently speculating on the idea of an environmentally sound relationship between humans and nature have largely failed to deal with the anthropocentric, selfish, greedy motives of humans. Instead they have focused on other more narrowly defined traits rather than deal with the ultimate issue at hand. If they had instead dealt with the problem at its base, greed, they would have come to much the same conclusion, that greed and nature are not inherently opposed but rather opposed because of the human use of greed for things that damage nature. This realization should come as no surprise to those who study human interactions. The simple step to stewardship is not far and would have a resounding impact on the world. Business would continue to make money, people would remain happy, if not become happier, and nature would become revitalized all through a simple attitude adjustment. And this is, I think, exactly what is needed.