Greed And Schimmel's Argument Analysis

1012 Words 5 Pages
Greed has historically been viewed as a vice by many religions and philosophers due to the harm that selfishness can cause and the immoral intent behind it. Some may argue that greed can be beneficial to society and may even be considered a guiding ethical principle. Carnegie presents an idea of how monetary greed and great wealth being possessed by the few may actually benefit society, whereas Schimmel would counter this point by acknowledging that greed is morally wrong for a number of reasons, and that it ultimately causes more harm than good. Though both sides have merits to their arguments, it is difficult to fully and universally declare either position to be completely correct in their reasoning. Nonetheless, I would say it is unreasonable to consider greed a ‘guiding ethical principle’.
Carnegie argues that wealth disparity amongst people is necessary to promote a society that develops as effectively as possible. He states that Individualism, Private Property, Law of Accumulation of Wealth, and Law of Competition are Individualistic requirements for creating the greatest societal outcome possible (Carnegie, p. 101). Carnegie’s argument relies not only
…show more content…
Schimmel would counter by citing the negative effects that greed may have but fails to concede any of the potential benefits that may result. Therefore, though I do not agree with either entirely, it is clear that greed is not an ethically good position to follow as it does often cause harm to society, people who are wealthy rarely have the sense of obligation of Carnegie, and because even the most morally upstanding person may become a victim of their own greed. Thus, from most any rational perspective, greed generally does more harm than good, and it would be dangerous to assert greed as a morally ‘good’ character

Related Documents