NationStates Jolt Archive

My Latin teacher, who is a diehard socialist, said today that it was "evil". I rolled my eyes and I think he noticed it and seemed annoyed with me the rest of the day. I personally think it's not evil, it's human nature. He always talks about sweat shops and poverty in Asia and Africa and while it is a terrible thing, I don't think it means that we are necessarly "evil". I go to a private school and many of the students that leave it end up getting good jobs and make plenty of money, so he's certanly choosen the wrong one in the city to rant about money. But back to my original question, is it?

Self improvement is evil? No.

My Latin teacher, who is a diehard socialist, said today that it was "evil". I rolled my eyes and I think he noticed it and seemed annoyed with me the rest of the day. I personally think it's not evil, it's human nature. He always talks about sweat shops and poverty in Asia and Africa and while it is a terrible thing, I don't think it means that we are necessarly "evil". I go to a private school and many of the students that leave it end up getting good jobs and make plenty of money, so he's certanly choosen the wrong one in the city to rant about money. But back to my original question, is it?
Making money is not human nature seeing as how money is a human invention which isn't anything at all.

Wanting to make money is definately not "evil". However, major corporations are indeed "evil".

Corporations screw their own country just so they can have wider profit margins. No matter how many people they have to lay off, no matter how many people's lives they have to ruin, they'll do whatever they can to cut costs and inflate the prices of their goods.

Making money is not human nature seeing as how money is a human invention which isn't anything at all.


I meant wanting self improvement and that may mean making more money.

Wanting to make money isn't "evil", yet taking advantage of others to make money is, I would think.

Perhaps wanting to make money only out of greed for wanting to horde it could be considered evil. But wanting to make money is not in and of itself evil.

wanting to make money to support yourself, your family, etc... fine.

wanting to make more money than is necessary - to support a celebrity-style lifestyle for eg - is horribly greedy & selfish, imo. "evil" may be too strong a word, but its certainly not a good thing

nothing wrong with making money--it is what you then chose to do with it and your life that sets the tone.

that said it is probably worth mentioning that no self respecting socialist would work in a private school--so die hard he isn't--sell out he is or worse still total hypocrite ;) A private school LATIN teacher with pretensions to socialism--lmao!!!

Wanting to make money isn't "evil", yet taking advantage of others to make money is, I would think.

Yes, although someone will always be taken advantage of in our present system...

I personally think it's not evil, it's human nature.

I would argue that simply because something is part of human nature does not make it acceptable, good, or "not evil." It's human nature to want to destroy/kill/harm those who anger you; those who oppose you. It's human nature to be greedy and manipulative. Does that mean those things are okay?

I don't think so. Your argument, in that regard, is flawed, I think.

nothing wrong with making money--it is what you then chose to do with it and your life that sets the tone.

that said it is probably worth mentioning that no self respecting socialist would work in a private school--so die hard he isn't--sell out he is or worse still total hypocrite ;) A private school LATIN teacher with pretensions to socialism--lmao!!!



I think he likes the school because they're the only one that will let him teach latin. I think other schools see it as a waste of time. Sad thing is, I take it :(.

But back to my original question, is it?

Depends how you go about doing it, really. If you make money by beating up old grannies and stealing their purses, then probably not.

I think he likes the school because they're the only one that will let him teach latin. I think other schools see it as a waste of time. Sad thing is, I take it :(.
It's certainly useful if you go into law...

Wealth itself, or the disire for it, is not evil. It's not exactly the most conscientous or selfless desire, but there isn't really anything wrong with it. At a certain point however it gets ridiculus. Wealth is morally unconscienable at the expense of human suffering. The main problem with wealth(or rather with wealthy people) is that most people are more interested in getting themselves from a 7 to an 8 on the ten point wealth/comfort scale than seeing someone else go from a 2 to a 3.

Latin teachers are in demand. Because of the new standardized testing requirements schools have to meet, schools are looking for ways to increase ratings in verbal and mathematics scores. Latin has been proven to improve verbal scores substantially, as opposed to French, German or Spanish; certainly they improve verbal scores, but Latin does so much more than the usual foreign languages.

My Latin teacher, who is a diehard socialist, said today that it was "evil".

Obviously, this teacher is either confused, a walking contradiction, or an idiot.

If he *really* is a diehard socialist, he must consider religion to be the opiate of the masses. Therefore, there is no good or evil. :)

I would argue that simply because something is part of human nature does not make it acceptable, good, or "not evil." It's human nature to want to destroy/kill/harm those who anger you; those who oppose you. It's human nature to be greedy and manipulative. Does that mean those things are okay?

I don't think so. Your argument, in that regard, is flawed, I think.


I re-worded it if you'll notice but is wanting to make money to support a family, have a home, etc evil?

Obviously, this teacher is either confused, a walking contradiction, or an idiot.

If he *really* is a diehard socialist, he must consider religion to be the opiate of the masses. Therefore, there is no good or evil. :)



He's also a christian or so he says, although he is a hyprocrit when it comes to religion.

Well Latin is a bizarre subject for a socialist to teach either way--regardless of his reasons it is hard to maintain a socialist agenda whilst making money off the very privilige, private school, you claim to despise--doesnt really work does it?

my advice learn what he can teach you about amo amas amat, assuming you want to be a doctor lol, and ignore him as a guide for life, because frankly the man is an idiot.

Money is just paper which the government says has value. It's how people earn it and how they use it which causes "good" or "evil" to result.

Well Latin is a bizarre subject for a socialist to teach either way--regardless of his reasons it is hard to maintain a socialist agenda whilst making money off the very privilige, private school, you claim to despise--doesnt really work does it?

my advice learn what he can teach you about amo amas amat, assuming you want to be a doctor lol, and ignore him as a guide for life, because frankly the man is an idiot.



Actually, I want to be a journalist but I'm talking the class mostly because my parents want me to. I'd rather just take French, but if I take Latin this year, I don't have to take it next.

oh and if your socialist idiot is trying to be a christian socialist idiot he needs to check his bible--the quote he is after is `LOVE of money is the root of all evil', not making it, not having it, but loving it above everything else ;)

Wanting to make money is definately not "evil". However, major corporations are indeed "evil".

Corporations screw their own country just so they can have wider profit margins. No matter how many people they have to lay off, no matter how many people's lives they have to ruin, they'll do whatever they can to cut costs and inflate the prices of their goods.
I'd say that lumping all corporations together as "evil" would be a baseless generalization.

My good friend's father is a top financial advisor with a major company that markets this product (http://www.close-call.info/) that will not only make your breath smell good, as it is marketed, but will also actually flush your sytem out within an hour, which means that you can drink one before leaving the bar and be clean if you get pulled by a cop on the way home. Now, this company is helping people everywhere by making it safer to drink at a bar and then be able to safely drive home. Heck yeah for them!

So anyways, be careful with generalizations.

Make money.. u mean print money :D Yes it's evil.

okok.. serious this time..

Making money is neutral, but it's the methods you make money. Some get money buy stealing, some do it honestly and benefit the society in return.

Imo, we are all inheritly greedy, but thats what pushes us to do better than the person next to us, however it can also go the otherway around and make you cheat still and kill.

MOney is neutral. Don't make money your master, be the master of your money. :)

Money is just paper which the government says has value. It's how people earn it and how they use it which causes "good" or "evil" to result.
Well, techinically, it doesn't have to be "paper". It could little seashells, or anything else, that the government decrees to be the unit of currency. It's entirely arbitrary.

Making, or wanting to make money is not evil IMHO, but the love of money tends to promote evil in my experience...

He's also a christian or so he says, although he is a hyprocrit when it comes to religion.

That was always likely to be the case given his choice of the word "evil".

The desire for money, when this becomes all encompasing, may well be evil. But only when it becomes obsessive. If you desire money, wealth, to provide a good standard of living for yourself and your family, then that is just normal human behaviour, a little selfish, but not evil.

If your desire for money is such that you willingly and deliberately cause others to suffer to obtain this money, then you are getting close to being evil. Many would say that this is evil.

If your desire for money is such that you willingly and deliberately cause those closest to you, emotionally, to suffer, then you are evil.

I hope this has answered your question.

He always talks about sweat shops and poverty in Asia and Africa and while it is a terrible thing

It may be a terrible thing from our point of view. However without us there, a good question whether they would be better off or worse?

I know some friends from Jakarta who owns a factory, they pay their workers few cents a day. But honestly, thats more than what the average joe out there in the street is earning. Hence they keep coming back. There's just too many people, and not enough job/resources.

I was actually going to use the "come one come all" as my opening line. now that that option is gone ill get to the point. My name is President Edwards of the Republic Of Monah. I require seven more nation to make a total of ten nations that are to be making up the region of Neva Neva Land. All those who are interested please send me a telegram and i will inspect your nations to se if you are worthy. The Neva Neva is highly exclusive and i anticipate there will not be vacancy for long.
yours
Pres. B. Edwards :cool:

It does and I would agree with it. If it becomes something that you'll do anything to get, then it's not good. But to provide for family or friends or whom ever is not evil.

I was actually going to use the "come one come all" as my opening line. now that that option is gone ill get to the point. My name is President Edwards of the Republic Of Monah. I require seven more nation to make a total of ten nations that are to be making up the region of Neva Neva Land. All those who are interested please send me a telegram and i will inspect your nations to se if you are worthy. The Neva Neva is highly exclusive and i anticipate there will not be vacancy for long.
yours
Pres. B. Edwards :cool:

Lol.. your in the wrong forums boyo. It's in Nationstates-Nationstates.. Where you play in character. This forum is General. So it's more free talk whatever you want.

My Latin teacher, who is a diehard socialist, said today that it was "evil". I rolled my eyes and I think he noticed it and seemed annoyed with me the rest of the day. I personally think it's not evil, it's human nature. He always talks about sweat shops and poverty in Asia and Africa and while it is a terrible thing, I don't think it means that we are necessarly "evil". I go to a private school and many of the students that leave it end up getting good jobs and make plenty of money, so he's certanly choosen the wrong one in the city to rant about money. But back to my original question, is it?

If they are idneed a socialist it is probably not the money itself they are objecting to but rather the capitalist system requiring the exploiting of their fellow man to make any significant amounts of money.

To quote the infamous Gordon Gekko*


The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest. Well, in my book you either do it right or you get eliminated.

In the last seven deals that I've been involved with, there were 2.5 million stockholders who have made a pretax profit of 12 billion dollars. Thank you.

I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them!

The point is, ladies and gentleman, is that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

Thank you very much.

*-Of the Movie "Wall Street" Fame.

I think it depends. If you're super rich and you're making money at the expense of your minimum wage workers, then yes. If you're a single mom trying to feed and clothe your children, then no.

I re-worded it if you'll notice but is wanting to make money to support a family, have a home, etc evil?

I have not noticed where you have reworded it in this post, but I'll presume that that post itself is the rewording.

You're framing the issue differently, La Terra. The primary question is "Is making money evil?" And you gave your argument as "it's natural to want to make money." My response was that simply because something is natural does not make it morally right; in response, you re-worded your assertion, so I must presume you agree with me on that point. If I am mistaken, please tell me.

Is making money to support a family, have a home and all that evil? It can be. Consider the context before you make a sweeping statement; your Latin teacher has [allegedly] made the mistake of saying that money is evil, itself a sweeping statement.

However, you're asking if it's evil to use money for neccessities in your new version of your question. In response, no. Attaining what is necessary to live is not evil; natural law would dictate that it is every human being's right to raise a family, possess shelter and acquire nourishment. This is a basic building block of liberty.

I believe what your Latin teacher was actually arguing - and what you seem to have missed - is that the absurd luxury of the West is immoral when so much of it could be channeled into humanitarian works across the world. He mentioned the poverty and sweatshops in Africa; it seems to me that this is very much related to his main point. I suppose the question is: Is it moral for the West to hoard it's wealth when it could give so much to the rest of the world while not contributing to any distress on their own part? [i.e. a man with $100 billion isn't going to suffer a ton if we take away $99 billion and give it to the Tsunami Relief effort or somesuch fund].

For a full discussion on the topic, I refer you to Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence and Morality," written in 1971. He's a utilitarian, and has a very good way of explaining why philanthropic behavior is a moral imperative for those who can afford it.

You should ask that hack of teacher if it is evil to "create" something... Most corporations are born on the desire to create something, a product, an idea, and expose people to it... In our society, the level of your success in buisness, is directly linked to your profitabily.. or your survivability.. No buisness will continue (employees and all) if money can't be made. So then, is it evil to have a desire to "create" ?

And you people speak of corporations desire to make money is based on evil and greed. Any and every corporations goal in its existance is to grow, and be profiable... without growth few companies can remain compeditive.. and this threatens the companies (and the employee's) survivability in the industry.

And it is not as though these companies are controled by one man who makes all the cash. Companies such as Microsoft, IBM, Dell are all pubilcally held companies.. many people owning stock, many of whome are ever day people such as you or me. And its true while we may not own enough stock to have a say in day to day operations, those who do have our interests in mind, as they seek to keep the company compeditive, and profitable.. And when companies finally like Microsoft become "cash cows" they dont simply keep the money for themselves, its given back in the form of Dividends to the people.... not just to the owners but to the stock holders. Managers do not own the means of production, everyone has access to these.

And all the talk of sweat shops, yes they are tragic things, yes they are wrong, yes they should be stoped. But as a CEO or a manager, should I be responsible for keeping an eye on all of my suppliers, and their buisness practicies. I devote my life to making sure my company runs and operates within the bounds of ethics, respecting law, while remaining profitable and compeditive... Am I also responsible for the actions of my neigbor ? And if so...can't the same argument be made that the consumer then bares equal burden of fault, Just as the company is responsible for keeping an eye on its suppliers, so the consumer is responsible for keeping an eye on the company and its suppliers...

Evil is thrown around left and right, but either blame is laided on everyone (not just corporations) or it is left where it really belongs.. in the hands of those true violators.

Just remember... Nike dosn't continue its business practicies if their consumers truely have problems with it...

Is wanting to make money illegal?
Hard to say, but unless you are the mint, acting on such a want is certainly illegal. ;)

i think, in light of the information that >70% of hollywood is full of liberals. we shuold practice wealth redistribution. In most cases they are merely suipporting themselves with their 40-100 mil a year income, so.......i think thy should only be able to keep 1 million max and give the rest to charities homelss people,and people who refuse to work, and minorities especaially, and drug addicts.

(not being racist, just demonstating the point that most welfare recipients are minorities, and now they want illegal aliens to get wefare as well)

Is wanting to make money wrong ? the simple answer is no.. because there are no evil motives behind wanting to make money... those people wanting to make money dont inherently want to screw over everyone around them (though do in the process by choice).

The whole overiding issue here is the idea of Buisness ethics.. and the simple truth is... there is no such thing. Buisness ehtics (outside the bounds of written law) differes GREATLY from person to person, and as such is dictated by the individual.

Another thing i dont understand.. where is this idea that people who are successful who make money have an OBLIGATION to give back to their society ? The money they make does not come from no where.. it comes from services given, from products given to soceity, through the spread of ideas, and ingenuity. After realizing this reality... how is it then one may suggest an obligation exists to "give back" to society, when giving is the whole basis for the accumulation of money. While we hope those better off generate more opprotunities (and there are many insentives so that they infact do so). But to suggest they have an obligation is obsurd at best, since their very success at creating something society wants and uses is in of it self a gift to society...

(not being racist, just demonstating the point that most welfare recipients are minorities, and now they want illegal aliens to get wefare as well)

HA.. not for long.. atleast in America. Finally States are getting the picture like Arizona and now Colorado stopping the hand outs to illegal aliens. And the more Countries like Mexico infrindge on the Soverigty of America, the more the perpetuate the oppositions momentum.

And it is not as though these companies are controled by one man who makes all the cash.

The absurd amount of money a "successful" CEO makes would suggest otherwise. Though he doesn't make all the cash, he makes enough to fund a private militia. Or live in opulence.

Any and every corporations goal in its existance is to grow, and be profiable... without growth few companies can remain compeditive.. and this threatens the companies (and the employee's) survivability in the industry.

I agree in theory. However, corporations are forming today because of large mergers so that the executives can walk away with as much cash as possible. The result is a concentration of power and wealth in the hands of an increasingly small number of individuals. There are but three major media outlets in the United States; the finance industry is quickly experiencing some kind of anti-mitosis, as is nearly every other industry. This is alarming. Monopolies are bad.

how is it then one may suggest an obligation exists to "give back" to society, when giving is the whole basis for the accumulation of money.

One could argue that a human being is morally obligated to aid those in a considerably worse position in life if it is within that human being's power and that human being would not experience serious consequences regarding his life, liberty or happiness as a result of that aid.

since their very success at creating something society wants and uses is in of it self a gift to society...

I fail to see how my making millions off the stock market contributes to the well-being of a girl in India who rolls cigarettes for 5 cents a day in squallor. Perhaps I'm missing something.

But as a CEO or a manager, should I be responsible for keeping an eye on all of my suppliers, and their buisness practicies. I devote my life to making sure my company runs and operates within the bounds of ethics, respecting law, while remaining profitable and compeditive...

Yes. If you claim to be running your company within the bounds of ethics, that means your company only works with ethical partners and suppliers. If child labor and poverty wages are what constitutes ethics for you, then you may want to re-examine what you believe.

Am I also responsible for the actions of my neigbor ?

Am I my brother's keeper?
Christ says yes. I agree.

And if so...can't the same argument be made that the consumer then bares equal burden of fault, Just as the company is responsible for keeping an eye on its suppliers, so the consumer is responsible for keeping an eye on the company and its suppliers...

Yes it can. But two wrongs don't make a right, to use another witticism.