Fandango’s Provocative Question #33

It’s hard to talk about this stuff without sounding pious or self-righteous. Personally, I always wonder if I have a price too and it’s merely that no one has offered to pay it that I have managed to stay true to my fundamental beliefs. When you’ve never been tempted or at least not tempted enough, it is hard to know what your own boundaries truly are.

This question was plucked from my post, so to a large degree, I’ve answered it already. Still, it’s a valid question with many possible answers and even more questions that lie along its borders.

The question of whether morality is part of “God’s personal patch” versus being a basic human issue is old. It’s a question that goes to the heart of every religion and dogma — as well every set of personal beliefs. It’s older than our literature and for all I know, they were pondering some version of this in cave dwellings.

For at least most of my life, as a child, adolescent, and adult, I have believed that we are all born with a fundamental knowledge of good and evil, of right and wrong. It isn’t something we need to be taught. We know it. Actually, Genesis essentially says more or less the same thing.

In our bones, in our brains, in that strange space we have that is neither physical or “brain matter,” but rather a special place where we preserve our personal beliefs.

That we all know what is right and wrong from our earliest youth through all of life does not mean that we always adhere to it. We have all done the wrong thing, whether it was big and bad, or little but nonetheless, wrong.

The cynical saying that “Everyone has a price” means no matter what you believe — or why you believe it — if you are offered a good enough deal, you’ll fold and do the wrong thing. It insinuates that greed is ultimately the most powerful emotion of which man is capable.

I want to believe that this is untrue and some of us cannot be bought. But do I know that? Or have many of us never been offered a high enough price? After all, the payment doesn’t have to be money. It can be power: legal power or religious power. It can make us godlike or rich beyond the ability of our calculator to count.

Greed can be the lust for knowledge, power, drugs, or land, though somehow money seems to squeeze into the equation somehow.

To quote Gordon Gekko, “Greed is good.”

Do you agree that greed is good? Or only that greed is good within limits, to a certain extent, but not beyond? That it’s okay to be greedy as long as you don’t get excessive about it?

What is excessive?

Does it mean only if you aren’t killing or crushing other people to reach your greed level, it’s okay? Or are there other issues?

I don’t believe that greed is good. The concept that greed is good offends me. I understand why greed feels good, though. I understand everyone wants to be safe from hardship and live life in comfort and dignity. I don’t consider that greedy. More like survival with benefits.

I certainly don’t think survival is greedy until you have to murder other people to achieve it. At which point you need to put down the gun and think about it.

It’s the excessiveness of greed that’s the problem. Because once you’ve broken through the comfort barrier and moved into luxury, when is enough, enough? What amount of whatever is sufficient?

When everything the eye can see, a man desires and comfort has long been surpassed, at what point do you stop? Do you ever stop? Can you stop? When you have the greedy bit clamped between your teeth, is there an end to your run?


Gold coins of Alexander of Macedon

When Alexander had flown on the back of an eagle to the gates of Heaven itself, he bangs on the door until finally, a wise man answers. Because he is a great and powerful leader, he demands the right to ask questions of the wise men. These are his questions:

“Who is wise?” asks Alexander.

“He who can foresee the future,” answers the wise man.

“Who is a hero?” asks Alexander.

“He who conquers himself,” replies another wise man.

“Who is rich?” asks Alexander.

“He who rests content with what he has,” the wise men respond.

Alexander depicted on an ancient synagogue wall

Following this question, there is a story Talmudic legend about Alexander (who was a Jewish hero — a story too long to explain here), a balance scale, and a human eye.

The eye is placed on one side of the scale. On the other side, are piled mountains of gold, gems, and all other riches. Yet the human eye is heavier, no matter how many riches are put on the other balance. Finally, one of the wise men sprinkles a bit of dust over the eye. From that moment, even a feather is heavier than the eye.

Until a man is dead and covered in earth, he will always desire more. Only death can end his greed.

“By what means does man preserve his life?” asks Alexander.

“When he kills himself.” (Talmudist notes: By this, the wise men meant when a man destroys within himself all passion.)

“By what means does a man bring about his own death?” asks Alexander, referring back to the previous question.

“When he clings to life.” (Talmudist notes: When a man holds onto his passions and belongs to them.)

“What should a man do who wants to win friends?” asks Alexander. This is his final question.

“He should flee from glory and despise dominion and kingship,” the wise men conclude.

At the end of the Judaization process, Alexander is a humbled dictator. Although the lesson does not make him a wise man, the Talmudic dialectics bring Alexander the Great down a notch or two, make him a better person and a more benevolent leader.

If anyone assured me that one can be moral and hold a strong belief system without a formal belief system, my mother did that. She believed in virtue — goodness for its own sake. She believed in dignity, kindness, fairness, and equality. She was not a racist although she was positive that education made you a better person. If there was a break in her “system,” education was it.

She loved beautiful things for their beauty, yet before she died, she gave away or sold all her jewelry and art.

In the end, I do not believe anyone of any faith is incorruptible. We all have a weak spot. Something about which we feel so passionate, we would give or do anything to achieve it.

Incorruptibility is a choice. To find out if you are incorruptible, you’d need to be tempted by whatever it is that means the most to you. You would have to make painful choices and would forever wonder if you were a fool for choosing virtue over greed, especially if you urgently needed what you refused.

If you do not have a God about whom you can say, “His laws made me do it,” you will probably feel even sillier than the religious man who at least believes he is following the route God laid out for him.

A non-believer has only his self by which to gauge the rights and wrongs of life. Standing alone is hard. A good life is a hard life.

And no one ever promised it would be easy.

Categories: Anecdote, good-and-evil, History, Marilyn Armstrong, Provocative Questions, Religion, right and wrong

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

20 replies

  1. I do not think you have to believe in God or be religious to be moral. We already know that many who claim to believe and are relgious have no moral compass at all.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. In a nutshell for me. I agree, I don’t believe there is a place for greed. The problem with greed is that once you give in, there’s no going back. At least that’s what I’ve noticed. And I also agree that we all know what is right and wrong and we have a CHOICE – our behaviour and actions always are. tyvm for this. Excellent to my way of thinking.


    • And that’s everyone’s fear of temptation. Give in once, the next time, it’s easier. Eventually, it’s not big deal. So those of us who really have a conscience have to draw a line, even when the line costs us. I remember at one point, someone tried to bribe Garry — actually, it happened twice. And both time, I heard him say to himself, “Oh, no. We are NOT going there.” He stopped eating at “that” restaurant and he never saw that neighbor again. No slippage. He had also seen the results of people who let themselves slide in with the wrong people.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. We all intuitively know right from wrong without having to be indoctrinated by religious teachings or that God is the fulcrum. Good post, Marilyn. Thanks for your in-depth response.


  4. Well I thought I had an answer, but there were so many that matched mine. In a nutshell we don’t need religion too behave in moral ways.


  5. A absolutely wonderful post – agree with your findings (to a point). And yes, greed (in my book) is bad (I’m not speaking about my greedy HH who doesn’t like to share his sweets!). I already ‘stopped’ at your other post regarding ‘the price of corruption’ – and I know the saying: Everything and everybody has a price. Believe me, I often think about that – I have given up my most interesting job ever because I was no longer able to ‘hand over my soul’ when I passed the reception desk of my employer. I still know that I did the right thing but my then husband told me many times that this company was corrupting me!!!
    The ’wise’ Alexander (who maybe wasn’t so wise when one thinks about it) is another theme I like to explore often.
    So much in this post to ponder…. To nod the head in agreement, but also to explore further. Thank you.


    • Doing the right thing isn’t easy. People say ask “why didn’t he/she just quit his/her job?” Because giving up a job is not an easy thing to do. We depend on our salaries. It’s not a simple choice and there are repercussions.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. A very comprehensive answer. Make perfect sense that me.


  7. I would have to agree. A strong moral compass does not require a belief in a higher being. I believe that Humanism is probably based upon that thought (Google)- “Humanistic Theories. … In the humanistic view, people are responsible for their lives and actions and have the freedom and will to change their attitudes and behavior. Two psychologists, Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, became well known for their humanistic theories.”


%d bloggers like this: