The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Greed is Good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2015 Category: Movies
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,038 times Debate No: 69401
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




As Pro I will be arguing that "greed is good." Greed should be desired. It should be desired in everyone. Some will dismiss greed as being selfish. I agree, greed may be selfish but that is a good thing. I plan to fully explain why in this debate.

Greed-"Intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food."

Good-"To be desired or approved of"


I am con so I will be arguing that greed is the opposite of good.

First I want to point out what good is. Good is about benefitting yourself as well as others. But greed is not about benfitting oneself nor others.

Pro says that greed should be desired because it is good. But greed is harmful and I will be showing that in this round how greed is harmful for ones soul ,ones body, and ones surrounding. And majority of people don't want to harm and want good instead.

What is harm?
A prime example of harm is corruption in third world countries. Corruption is usurping money that you don't deserve. If you have more than enough and your neighbor doesn't even have a ppeice of morsel in his home then a portion of your money is some thing he deserves. You are basically a murderer if you intentionally starve him to death through your greed.

Corruption is a symptom of greed ==not good and harm

Corruption is a symptom of greed and this harms even on the national scale. For instance Indonesia is very rich in resources yet the money that is gained from those resources is not distributed among the general population thus leaving then poor. Obviously this is the case where the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. If the rich were to distribute a portion of their money then the poor would have more money than if the rich didn't distribute it in the fist place. The rich excercise this moral disease of greed through corruption thus harming those around them.

Greed also harm the body

Since the money isn't distributed among the general population they live frugally surviving off what they could. In Indonesia they use motorcycles as a prime mode of transportation. It is cheaper than getting a car. Imagine 50 motorists on an intersection of a street which is normal. The result Is pollution and smog and the inability to breath air . That harms not onl y the poor but also guess what the rich too. Thus even greed is harmful physically

On the other hand rich gulf countries like Kuwait distribute the money from oil among their population. They don't face these problems of smog or poverty. This kind of distribution of money cannot come from an act of greed; this can only happen when the soul is not consumed in thoughts of pleasing itself.

Greed harms the soul

Greed also harms the person exhibiting it. Greed eventually leads to uncontentness because greed means to be take more even if one has more than enough. A greedy person who has two mountains of gold would have only desired a third. What good is a third when it is in a greedy persons nature to want a fourth? His end will never exist ; it is only a loop of uncontentedness and this is not desirable and accomplishing good.

Corruption is harm, bodily injury is harm, and uncontentedness is unhappiness which is harm. All are the results of people being greedy. Since only extensive harm can the result of greed, it is not good.
Debate Round No. 1


"Good is about benefitting yourself as well as others. But greed is not about benfitting oneself nor others."

Con, this is false. If I do something out of greed how do you know others don't benefit? If I decide I want to become a millionaire to look better than my neighbors. To become a millionaire, I decide to sell a product tosatisfy my own greed, do others not benefit from me selling my product? Others benefit from me selling the product, they must like and enjoy the product otherwise I won't become a millionaire. In this case specifically, Con, is greed not good? Is my greed harmful to anyone else? Ater all you said greed is harmful.

Con is arguing against when some people are greed. I am arguing that more people should become greedy.People would safeguard the money they have to prevent others from taking it. Corruption relates to when some are greedy and others are not. Are laws not a form of greed? After all, laws(criminal laws) serve to protect the weak from the strong. Are the weak not being greedy? Do the weak not want some fictional concept to protect them from those that are stronger? It is out of their own selfishness that they want protection.

Con goes on to play the blame game about neighbors. If I have more than my neighbor that is a representation of our incomes. If my income is more than his it is strictly a representation of our exchange of labor. Currency is only an exchange of labor, that means my work is worth more than his. If our work was equal people would pay us about the same pay. My neighbor does not deserve anything I have. On what merit does he deserve anything I have? The only person I can control is myself yet Con is pulling out a feint claiming we are responsible for are neighbors. How can we be responsible for that which we can not control? I would not be a murderer for sharing with my neighbor. My neighbor would of killed himself since he is resposible for his own well being as I am responsible for my own well being as well. I may chose to share with my neighbor but that is if I like him. Why would I want feed someone whom I dislike? That is arming an enemy in simple terms.

Corruption does not equate to greed.

Corruption:"Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery"

My opponent mentions the distribution of money. Why did Con ignore the Soviet Union and China? Aren't these historically speaking, the leading wealth distributors. It was the selflessness of the people which lead to their own suffering. That is why Stalin said "One death is a tragedy and one million is a statistic." The death of one person doesn't matter. If people stood up out of their own greed to preserve their own interests there would never have been such statistics.


Pro seems to confuse greed with need. Need is something that is required.Yet the following are the reasons behind Pros argument that the weak are greedy.

- Laws serve to protect the weak from the strong.
- It is out of selfishness that they want protection
Pro: So the weak are greedy.

The weak act upon need not Greed. There's a difference between the two. Greed is when you're being selfish. Need is based upon lacking of something important and required to surviving . Greed is based upon desire of extravagance and that is beyond what we really need. For example we need to breathe. Is it greedy to breathe? Or is it a need? Pro is confusing need with greed. The law doesn't protect the weak because of the weaks selfishness but rather to serve a need and a dificiency that the strong don't face.

We need to understand that we don't need greed. More people should not become greedy. Why should we not want something that we don't need? Yet Pro argues that more people should be greedy. Is it essential to our survivial to want more than what is required? Is greed as similar as breathing?

Pro argues for the person who wants to become a millionaire. Is it neccessary to become a millionaire? Is it the same as breathing or sleeping? Surely it is not harmful to wish for money but involving greed will only invite unhappiness which is basically not desireable and is the opposite of what Pro argues that of greed.

It is in the nature of a greedy person to want more. Yes once you become a millionaire you will be happy but only for a short time. Once you become a millionaire you will only want to become a billionaire. This is only going to be a cycle a start of a cycle, an endless cycle of wanting to have more. Does this cycle of greed bring about any good except for one to constantly feel lacking? Pro you advocate that people should be greedy but reality it is not possible for one to ever NEED to be greeedy.

Pro argues for the greedy rich person who let's his destitute neighbors die from hunger. Pro reasons that you control your own money and you cannot control the well-being of that neighbor. There's also another thing you can control that is your desire. Pro claims that we don't have an obligation to feed our neighbors because we can't control his well being. Of course you cannot control the well-being of another person. However we can control our desire to hoard money that has been the factor of your neighbors death. Is it not possible to stop such a person's death by feeding him? Do we not have an advantage of being able to control money that could have save this soul? And a neighbor dies because we choose to not give money and stem our desires? And Pro do you want to advocate for the greed when we don't need it? When it causes misfortune?

Pro mentions Soviet and China , countries that had set out to be wealth distributors. Pro says that through greed, people would avoid dying. No not through greed of a few handful people, these countries face a population of poverty and a handful of rich. A handful of people acting uppon on greed can destroy even a population.
Debate Round No. 2


Con must think he is clever, he is now rhyming and manipulating words such as "greed" and "need." How are laws a "need" for the strong? Con carefully ignores this because he knows that laws are not a need for the strong. So instead Con tries to confuse us with a weak analogy fallacy by comparing laws to air[1]. It is a weak analogy because human beings "needing" to breathe air has nothing to do with lawmaking. Laws are made and retracted by humans, air is not an option to be retracted. Back to the point, fallacies aside.The weak are only concerned about themselves in their advocation of laws. The strong are ignored so they are only concerned about what benefits them. Therefore we must conclude that their concern for themselves at the expense of the strong must be seen as selfish.


Con further explains his ignorance when he asks "is it necessary to become a millionaire?" Con fails to realize and accept it is the consumers alone who decide how much money people will ultimately be making. Then Con further ignored my question from Round 2 to engage in more petty trickery and manipulating. A quick recall: " Is my greed harmful to anyone else?" I asked this in a question in reference to a person becoming a millionaire. and selling products to which many people consume. Con just ignored this intentionally because he knows he will not be able to prove it is harmful. Therefore, Con has attempted to deflect. Don't be distracted by what he said when he artfully ignored what I said and asked. We are not discussing the "happiness" or the "need" of greed. We are discussing whether greed is good. Con has moved goal posts to ignore points here to obfuscate the resolution of this debate.

Con further goes into more foul tactics as he goes on by using appeal to emotion in reference to the neighbor[2]. Con never answered my questions, again. Simply because Con knows he can't answer them. Con has no premise to make any arguments about why the neighbor should be fed. I asked explicitly: "How can we be responsible for that which we can not control?" Con showed no responsibility therefore, I have no obligation to feed my neighbor. Con went on to purposefully ignore one of the better points of what I said in Round 2: "Why would I want feed someone whom I dislike?" Con again knows he would lose this argument so he ignored it.

Pro further establishes my point. If the Soviet Union and China had more greedy people, would people have sacrificed so much for little? I think not.


Con has engaged in manipulation and trickery. I ask a single person to deny it including Con himself. He has stooped so low to attempt to try to change the resolution. The debate resolution is not "Greed is a Need" but "Greed is Good." I would state emphatically, Con has not shown us how greed is not good.Therefore, Vote Pro.


captiancoder forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Less people would be starving if no one was greedy.
Posted by footballchris561 1 year ago
Good should be more clearly defined in your own words. Good to who and in what way?
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
The way you defined greed to me sounds bad. The intense part in particular.
Posted by AFism 1 year ago
I agree with beagle, can you clarify more? Like greed is essential to progressing economically?
Posted by Idiosyncratic 1 year ago
At first I thought you meant Greed from Full Metal Alchemist :P. No greed is not good, because if you are known as a greedy person, it affects your relationships and hurts you more than it helps.
Posted by Beagle_hugs 1 year ago
The problem with the proposition that greed is good is that it is essentially trivial. Greed can have good effects, but so can other qualities that are unlike greed. It's unclear in what sense you mean that greed is good--whether it is absolutely good, whether it is superior to other qualities that might achieve other effects, whether it is good for the individual, society, or both, and so forth. I might accept a debate like this if I had a better idea of your intent...but at the same time I won't debate unimpressive and vacant-minded ideas of Ayn Rand, who hadn't a clue what a Galt actually is.
No votes have been placed for this debate.