WHY is it said that the root of all evil is a love of money?

[chang50]

Like most old sayings this one doesn't bear much scrutiny,there is plenty of evil in the world that has no apparent connection to the love of money,eg serial murderers who kill for pleasure.Obviously being obsessed with money and what this leads to is not good..

[BigBallinStalin]

My feeling is that money is used to purchase things, mostly immediate needs and wants. It allows you to pursue immediate desires instead of looking more long term. It can hide impacts of ills you do in that way.

Money allows you to do both...
(long-term and short-term).


So, it's not money, or the love of money, that's the problem here. The 'problem' which you envision is having a high time preference (i.e. "I want it, and I want it now"), which is not in all cases a problem. Regarding the love of money, it doesn't matter if the thing wanted was money to buy X, Y, and Z. It could've been potatoes, which would be exchanged for X, Y, and Z in some barter economy.

My point was that money makes getting what you want NOW possible.

If you have to go out and raise the food you want, or make some product to trade, then it takes a lot more time.

Sure, money reduces transaction costs--but so do credit cards, and so do cars (reduced time to get to place A to buy X), so instead of blaming money, why not blame cars, banks, etc.?
(because it's not about money, it's about having a high time preference).

None of those were available at the time this was written down.
Also, credit, etc are really just different types of money.

Ah, so you're talking about the "money is the root of all evil" idea from the Age before Credit, which was... 800+ years ago, since credit has been around that long (and probably before). "But what about banks?" Venice, roughly 400 years ago. "What about credit cards"? Oh okay, so this idea against money only applies to time before credit cards, but then you run into the centuries-old bank and credit problem.

Either way, it's evident that you're (or whoever you want to shift this to) is complaining about high time preference--which they mistake for "love of money."

Money is a medium of exchange; that's all it is. It can be exchanged in the form of credit and debits, or as cash money, or as gold, silk cords, fancy beads, etc.

And your second sentence isn't necessarily true. You could be some farmer who gets paid by the day in potatoes, which you then trade for whatever good you want...
(hell, you could even have potatoes on a credit card, and transfer money that way).

IF you have already taken the time to grow the potatoes. Money gained through trade of goods is generally quicker -- the time of transport. Dependent generally upon producers. Today, though a lot of money is not directly linked to any product or service, its just money to those acquiring it.

But you're still missing the point. Your complaint against money/love of money and "you can get X NOW" is about transaction costs and time preference, and not about money itself. I've already explained this.

Sorry, but the criticism against money itself--or "the love of money"--isn't holding up.

I am talking about a famous saying and why it has for so long been held in regard.
I am not criticizing money, nor is the saying.
If you don't think the saying is true, that is a valid opinion, of course. However, you are acting as if this were my own personal saying and a recent one at that, and it isn't.

So, whenever you bring in any defense, it's not at all yours but from the idea? I find that unlikely unless you provide some source.

Finally,

1. Money allows for long-term spending and short-term spending, so you were completely wrong when you said, "It allows you to pursue immediate desires instead of looking more long term."

Why were you wrong? Because you're mixing up money with high time preference.

2. The following is wrong too: "My point* was that money makes getting what you want NOW possible," but wait a minute! banks, credit, credit cards, cars, higher productivity (thus lower prices), etc., also "make getting what you want NOW possible"; therefore, it is not only money which causes this (note how you ignore my point about cars and how that reduces transaction costs).

3. Shifting to "Oh, well, I'm talking about the "love of money = evil" idea when it came out," is silly because many of the above institutions have been around for centuries, and furthermore...

*...it's your point, and not the idea's? But just now, you said, "you are acting as if this were my own personal saying and a recent one at that, and it isn't." Obviously, you're contradicting yourself, and we have not been only discussing the "money is evil" saying, but also your own defense of it.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll keep this simple, as I have to go to a NaNaWriMo kickoff meeting in an hour and it's about an hour away.

First we need to get word definitions right. Love is a highly fungable word. We can "love" chocolate. We can also obsess over chocolate.

I have the feeling that it is the later. Money can be considered the universal medium to acquire property; it's highly fungable as you can buy all sorts of property with money,

Thus the obesssion with money, the ability to acquire things on demand, leads ones towards the self at the exclusion of others. Thus evil, the ability to hurt others for personal gain, in part is driven by the biggest medium of personal gain, money.

Does that make sense?

But that's completely wrong. If you demand something with money, it doesn't follow that it "leads ones towards the self at the exclusion of others" because obviously you could buy something for you and others. And even if you didn't buy anything for anyone else, the voluntary exchange involving money is mutually beneficial ex-ante since both parties of the exchange value the exchange of goods more so than not exchanging the goods... There's nothing evil with money or any medium of exchange--even when you pursue your own private interest.

What matters is context. Evil is engaging in a voluntary exchange with a hitman to murder someone, but this is completely different from saying, "Money is the root of all evil" or " evil = ability to hurt others for personal gain, which was driven by money." Besides, money does not 'drive personal gain' because that's false anthropomorphism; money does not act or decide. If anyone is to blame, you have to examine the person's value judgements--instead of blaming the medium of exchange.

The "money is the root of all evil" or "love of money is evil" is just an ignorant saying.

[BigBallinStalin]

Like most old sayings this one doesn't bear much scrutiny,there is plenty of evil in the world that has no apparent connection to the love of money,eg serial murderers who kill for pleasure.Obviously being obsessed with money and what this leads to is not good..

How about obsessing over money in order to increase the revenue of a reputable charity?

That's somehow not good?

Like I said, it's not about money, or the obsession of money. It depends on one's purpose/value judgements--and definitely not money itself, or the pursuit/love of money.

[PLAYER57832]

My feeling is that money is used to purchase things, mostly immediate needs and wants. It allows you to pursue immediate desires instead of looking more long term. It can hide impacts of ills you do in that way.

Money allows you to do both...
(long-term and short-term).


So, it's not money, or the love of money, that's the problem here. The 'problem' which you envision is having a high time preference (i.e. "I want it, and I want it now"), which is not in all cases a problem. Regarding the love of money, it doesn't matter if the thing wanted was money to buy X, Y, and Z. It could've been potatoes, which would be exchanged for X, Y, and Z in some barter economy.

My point was that money makes getting what you want NOW possible.

If you have to go out and raise the food you want, or make some product to trade, then it takes a lot more time.

Sure, money reduces transaction costs--but so do credit cards, and so do cars (reduced time to get to place A to buy X), so instead of blaming money, why not blame cars, banks, etc.?
(because it's not about money, it's about having a high time preference).

None of those were available at the time this was written down.
Also, credit, etc are really just different types of money.

Ah, so you're talking about the "money is the root of all evil" idea from the Age before Credit, which was... 800+ years ago, since credit has been around that long (and probably before). "But what about banks?" Venice, roughly 400 years ago. "What about credit cards"? Oh okay, so this idea against money only applies to time before credit cards, but then you run into the centuries-old bank and credit problem.

Either way, it's evident that you're (or whoever you want to shift this to) is complaining about high time preference--which they mistake for "love of money."

Money is a medium of exchange; that's all it is. It can be exchanged in the form of credit and debits, or as cash money, or as gold, silk cords, fancy beads, etc.

That last bit is the point I was making. You pointed out credit, etc as counter points to what I said of money. I simply said that those are included in the term "money". I was not arguing your point. I was saying it was irrelevant to the discussion.

And your second sentence isn't necessarily true. You could be some farmer who gets paid by the day in potatoes, which you then trade for whatever good you want...
(hell, you could even have potatoes on a credit card, and transfer money that way).

IF you have already taken the time to grow the potatoes. Money gained through trade of goods is generally quicker -- the time of transport. Dependent generally upon producers. Today, though a lot of money is not directly linked to any product or service, its just money to those acquiring it.

But you're still missing the point. Your complaint against money/love of money and "you can get X NOW" is about transaction costs and time preference, and not about money itself. I've already explained this.

Except my argument is that money IS the cost/tiem preference. That we get things even faster today is irrelevant. Without money, you could not have that efficient system. As such, in and of itself it is not a problem.. merely and expeident.

BUT, when you move from simply having money and liking the things it can get you to simply liking the acquisition of the money itself, that is the issue. Tzor put it pretty well, I thought.

Its the difference between wanting a new car, knowing you need to get the money to have that car and just wanting money.. so that whenever a new car comes that you want you can just have it. Its a subtle, but important difference. The time frame is irrelevant, teh difference is in the point of desire.

Sorry, but the criticism against money itself--or "the love of money"--isn't holding up.

I am talking about a famous saying and why it has for so long been held in regard.
I am not criticizing money, nor is the saying.
If you don't think the saying is true, that is a valid opinion, of course. However, you are acting as if this were my own personal saying and a recent one at that, and it isn't.

So, whenever you bring in any defense, it's not at all yours but from the idea? I find that unlikely unless you provide some source.

LOL
Now you are just trolling. Even if you claim ignorance of the saying, I did cite the source (The Bible, though I noted that the saying was likely found elsewhere, too).

You initally did not deal with the actual question, instead tried to nitpick about credit cards somehow being different from money (although in the next post you did bring up a real point about time frame.. I disagreed, but it was a real point).

And now are back to your standard "I'll just attack and not bother to discuss anything".

1. Money allows for long-term spending and short-term spending, so you were completely wrong when you said, "It allows you to pursue immediate desires instead of looking more long term."

Why were you wrong? Because you're mixing up money with high time preference.

2. The following is wrong too: "My point* was that money makes getting what you want NOW possible," but wait a minute! banks, credit, credit cards, cars, higher productivity (thus lower prices), etc., also "make getting what you want NOW possible"; therefore, it is not only money which causes this (note how you ignore my point about cars and how that reduces transaction costs).

3. Shifting to "Oh, well, I'm talking about the "love of money = evil" idea when it came out," is silly because many of the above institutions have been around for centuries, and furthermore...

*...it's your point, and not the idea's? But just now, you said, "you are acting as if this were my own personal saying and a recent one at that, and it isn't." Obviously, you're contradicting yourself, and we have not been only discussing the "money is evil" saying, but also your own defense of it.

When you want to discuss what I actually posted.. fine. If you want to just troll.. I don't have the time to bother right now.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, I even quoted you on what you actually said, calmly addressed it, and somehow that's trolling.

Player, what is money?

what is time preference?

and what is transaction cost?

I ask because you've been using these ideas, but you don't at all understand what you're saying.

E.g.
"Except my argument is that money IS the cost/tiem preference. That we get things even faster today is irrelevant."
(Clearly, your argument has not asserted that, and it's impossible for transaction cost to also be time preference--if that's what you meant by "cost/tiem preference." And if "we get things even faster today is irrelevant," then why even bring it up? Furthermore, it is not irrelevant because time preference and transaction cost are relevant, as I've already explained, and as you seem to be also arguing in favor of--or not; it depends on the time of day, I guess.)

[Phatscotty]

as always, simple answer...

because it makes you do things you don't want to do or know you shouldn't do

[PLAYER57832]

Haha, I even quoted you on what you actually said, calmly addressed it, and somehow that's trolling.

Player, what is money?

what is time preference?

and what is transaction cost?

I ask because you've been using these ideas, but you don't seem to understand what you're saying.

If you don't understand what money is, then try reading some basic economic blogs.

If you want to discuss the Biblical saying.. then change your discussion to that topic.

It seems like you might have a point you wish to discuss, beyond trolling. However, it is too intermixed with your desire to troll to make an effective and valid argument.


Also.. my argument (and Tzor's for that matter) was that money allowing for the shortened transaction and transport costs is part of why love of money leads to evil. I have never said it did not do those things. Whether today or yesterday, Gold bars or a bank card.. is irrelevant. Its all money, it all operates the same basic way.

[PLAYER57832]

as always, simple answer...

because it makes you do things you don't want to do or know you shouldn't do

A good answer! Thank you.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I just got paid today,
Got me a pocket full of change.
Said, I just got paid today,
Got me a pocket full of change.
If you believe like workin' hard all day,
Just step in my shoes and take my pay.

I was born my papa's son,
When I hit the ground I was on the run.
I had one glad hand and the other behind.
You can have yours, just give me mine.
When the hound dog barkin' in the black of the night,
Stick my hand in my pocket, everything's all right.

I just got paid today,
Got me a pocket full of change.
Said, black sheep, black, do you got some wool?
Yes, I do, man, my bag is full.
It's the root of evil and you know the rest
But it's way ahead of what's second best.

[ManBungalow]

I would think that a love of money is just as much a cause of evil as like, say, a love of religion. Or a love of anything, really.

I disagree as money has no intrinsic value. Many other things do.

Bullcrap - nothing has intrinsic value.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, I even quoted you on what you actually said, calmly addressed it, and somehow that's trolling.

Player, what is money?

what is time preference?

and what is transaction cost?

I ask because you've been using these ideas, but you don't seem to understand what you're saying.

If you don't understand what money is, then try reading some basic economic blogs.

If you want to discuss the Biblical saying.. then change your discussion to that topic.

It seems like you might have a point you wish to discuss, beyond trolling. However, it is too intermixed with your desire to troll to make an effective and valid argument.


Also.. my argument (and Tzor's for that matter) was that money allowing for the shortened transaction and transport costs is part of why love of money leads to evil. I have never said it did not do those things. Whether today or yesterday, Gold bars or a bank card.. is irrelevant. Its all money, it all operates the same basic way.

Haha, okay, it's okay.

Gold bars and bank cards do matter, because if you wish to change the issue to "money allowing for the shortened transaction and transport costs is part of why love of money leads to evil," then you'd have to compare the different causes on transaction costs in order to determine how responsible money itself (or love of money) is for evil.

You see how banks, various monies (media of exchange), etc. are related to that? Furthermore, (and you keep ignoring this), if you wish to use your 'decreased transaction costs partly causes love of money which leads to evil' claim, then you'd have to admit that using a car also decreases TC which partly causes love of money which leads to evil. If you can drive, you can get more money, and somehow cause more evil because one's love of money leads to more evil (which is completely false).


And finally, if you wish to narrow all this down to this newer, updated argument of yours, then I've already shown that it's wrong:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180318&view=unread#p3938582



*P.S. Great dodge. It's apparent that you do not know basic economics, but there's nothing wrong with this. What is wrong is presuming that you do know basic economics (which obviously you don't).

[BigBallinStalin]

as always, simple answer...

because it makes you do things you don't want to do or know you shouldn't do

That's a proximate cause. The fundamental cause stems from one's value judgments--and not money. Money doesn't act, nor does it cause you to do anything. That's like saying, "That small rock made me do it." That's false anthropomorphism.


If you were a very morally good person, then it would take a lot of money to convince you to do something absolutely evil (e.g. killing your best friend). We can change the amount of money offered (thus profit) in order to convince you to do X, but what determines your choice? Is it the money?

If yes, (which you're stating), then $1.00 would be enough to convince you to kill your best friend. Obviously, this is not true because your value judgments (among other contributing factors from within yourself) influence the price at which you'll act. The price may be presented as money, but ultimately, the cause of taking that money stems from yourself in the form of value judgements, your perception of profit, etc. It definitely does not stem from money itself, nor saying "money made me do it."

*For the sake of brevity, the institutions within which one acts also matter (so I'm not saying that it's 100% the atomistic individual at play).

[BigBallinStalin]

Money itself is amoral.

Love of money itself is amoral.

What matters is context, that is the decisions which you make that involve money.

For example,
Morally good = one's love of money to increase revenue for an upstanding charity
Morally bad = one's love of money to increase revenue for Hitler's SS operations


In other words, ask: "WHY does person A love money? For what purposes shall that person use the money?"


If you can't answer that (which the OP and player/tzor's argument ignore), then you'll be just as mistaken as the OP, tzor, and player.

[PLAYER57832]

Money itself is amoral.

Love of money itself is amoral.

What matters is context, that is the decisions which you make that involve money.

For example,
Morally good = one's love of money to increase revenue for an upstanding charity
Morally bad = one's love of money to increase revenue for Hitler's SS operations


In other words, ask: "WHY does person A love money? For what purposes shall that person use the money?"


If you can't answer that (which the OP and player/tzor's argument ignore), then you'll be just as mistaken as the OP, tzor, and player.

No, because what you are describing is not actually a love of money itself. You are describing a love of things the money can get and trying to shift the debate to that.

We are describing the problem with the love of money itself.

[Funkyterrance]

My feeling is that money is used to purchase things, mostly immediate needs and wants. It allows you to pursue immediate desires instead of looking more long term. It can hide impacts of ills you do in that way.

Money allows you to do both...
(long-term and short-term).


So, it's not money, or the love of money, that's the problem here. The 'problem' which you envision is having a high time preference (i.e. "I want it, and I want it now"), which is not in all cases a problem. Regarding the love of money, it doesn't matter if the thing wanted was money to buy X, Y, and Z. It could've been potatoes, which would be exchanged for X, Y, and Z in some barter economy.

The problem is the fact that money (currency) is a means to an end, not an end in itself. When someone has reached the point where they "love money" they most likely have lost sight of what it really is and have moved into obsession territory. Obsessions are not healthy/productive.

[BigBallinStalin]

Money itself is amoral.

Love of money itself is amoral.

What matters is context, that is the decisions which you make that involve money.

For example,
Morally good = one's love of money to increase revenue for an upstanding charity
Morally bad = one's love of money to increase revenue for Hitler's SS operations


In other words, ask: "WHY does person A love money? For what purposes shall that person use the money?"


If you can't answer that (which the OP and player/tzor's argument ignore), then you'll be just as mistaken as the OP, tzor, and player.

No, because what you are describing is not actually a love of money itself. You are describing a love of things the money can get and trying to shift the debate to that.

We are describing the problem with the love of money itself.

It doesn't matter how you often you shift your quicksand position because I've already countered the several different versions of the same basic argument with the following:



viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180318&view=unread#p3938576
(you failed with this one)

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180318&view=unread#p3938582
(tzor's position, which is false)

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180318&view=unread#p3938585

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180318&view=unread#p3938582

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180318&view=unread#p3938663
(PS' answer, which is also false)

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180318&view=unread#p3938670


So far, you, tzor, the OP, and PS have all been shown to be false for reasons already stated. If you'd like to address the problems with your (and whoever's arguments which you'll agree with but not support or maybe support or maybe change but not really depending on your time of day), then be my guest.

[BigBallinStalin]

My feeling is that money is used to purchase things, mostly immediate needs and wants. It allows you to pursue immediate desires instead of looking more long term. It can hide impacts of ills you do in that way.

Money allows you to do both...
(long-term and short-term).


So, it's not money, or the love of money, that's the problem here. The 'problem' which you envision is having a high time preference (i.e. "I want it, and I want it now"), which is not in all cases a problem. Regarding the love of money, it doesn't matter if the thing wanted was money to buy X, Y, and Z. It could've been potatoes, which would be exchanged for X, Y, and Z in some barter economy.

The problem is the fact that money (currency) is a means to an end, not an end in itself. When someone has reached the point where they "love money" they most likely have lost sight of what it really is and have moved into obsession territory. Obsessions are not healthy/productive.

But FunkyT, so what if money is a means to an end? How is using money as a means to an end a problem? That's like saying, "using potatoes to trade for shoes is a (moral) problem."

Suppose the problem is money as an end in itself is your position. It still doesn't follow that 'money is the root of evil' or what have you. Would money as an end in itself be a problem? It could, but it depends on the consequence and means (the context) of how that money was collected.

Your second sentence may be true, or it may not be, because it depends on the reasons and consequences of that person's love for money.

Re: third sentence, they might be for the reasons stated above.


For example, if one is obsessed with money, and if they still produce value for others from which they profit--and this is all based on voluntary exchanges and no one's property rights are being violated here, then how is obsessing over money unhealthy or unproductive? It isn't because it depends.

[PLAYER57832]

If you love money, then you work for the money. How you get it is essentially irrelevant. In many cases, even the legality is irrelevant except that its usually more expedient (cuts into profits less) to follow the law. As Phattscotty said, you ignore harm unless it interferes with profit.

In a real sense, I doubt that even the worst embezzler, for example, really thinks about harming people. Still, someone like Madoff might start by convincing themselves they would pay everything back.. or that they are protecting people. But... in some personalities the pressure could lead them to do more than just theft.

But that gets into the second part of the question. How would someone who loves money act? How does the love of money lead to evil? How do we recognize it and that we are not in that trap?

[Funkyterrance]

For example, if one is obsessed with money, and if they still produce value for others from which they profit--and this is all based on voluntary exchanges and no one's property rights are being violated here, then how is obsessing over money unhealthy or unproductive? It isn't because it depends.

Indeed, thinking about and planning in regards to money is not necessarily unhealthy but obsessing over it is. Obsession implies an unbalanced and irrational state of mind. Obsession implies not knowing "when to say when". I am not taking the stance that money is the root of all evil because I don't believe this to be true. If anything is the root of all evil it's greed which happens to be associated with money and is what I feel the proverb is really referring to. Greed being the drive for power, prestige, material things, etc. beyond the point of being beneficial in any way.

[PLAYER57832]

For example, if one is obsessed with money, and if they still produce value for others from which they profit--and this is all based on voluntary exchanges and no one's property rights are being violated here, then how is obsessing over money unhealthy or unproductive? It isn't because it depends.

Indeed, thinking about and planning in regards to money is not necessarily unhealthy but obsessing over it is. Obsession implies an unbalanced and irrational state of mind. Obsession implies not knowing "when to say when". I am not taking the stance that money is the root of all evil because I don't believe this to be true. If anything is the root of all evil it's greed which happens to be associated with money and is what I feel the proverb is really referring to. Greed being the drive for power, prestige, material things, etc. beyond the point of being beneficial in any way.

This is a good point. I sometimes think this way, but sometimes think (at least when it comes to the Bible) that it was money, specifically to which was referred. That's part of why I started the thread.. so see what other people thought about it.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you love money, then you work for the money. How you get it is essentially irrelevant.

Therefore, player admits that if you get your money by shooting people in the head, then this makes no difference when you compare that to someone who gets his money by voluntarily exchanging his services for some company.

Obviously, the context matters, and as long as player ignores this, she'll be constantly shown to be wrong.

In a real sense, I doubt that even the worst embezzler, for example, really thinks about harming people. Still, someone like Madoff might start by convincing themselves they would pay everything back.. or that they are protecting people. But... in some personalities the pressure could lead them to do more than just theft.

But that gets into the second part of the question. How would someone who loves money act? How does the love of money lead to evil? How do we recognize it and that we are not in that trap?

Well, gee, you seem to be confirming my earlier point about looking at the value judgments of the users of money instead of simply blaming the proximate cause (use of money itself, or love of money itself).

But then, in order to answer these questions, part of the answer lies in assessing the means and consequences and how the consequences affect the decision-makers (thus their value judgments), so in the end you're agreeing with me while contradicting yourself.

[john9blue]

money is equivalent to power in our society.

power often corrupts.

it's really that simple.

[tzor]

Yes, and Thank you. I tend to agree with you on the analysis, but beyond that, I appreciate your answering/discussing the question itself.

Do you think this is actually a true fear? or is it something that maybe was a fear and is not now? (and I realize you cannot answer right now)

As I mentioned before, this requires a lot of understanding of definitions, especially on the notion of (in this context) money, love and even evil. So the question starts off with “what is evil.”

Here is where I'll jump off of a religious argument and take on the role of the role playing philosopher, otherwise known as someone who enters one too many D&D debates. While evil is defined generally as “not good morally” and “causing or tending to cause harm” the real core definition of evil involves the actions of the will. The comet that destroys the earth is clearly not evil. The insane person who does not rationally think through all his actions is not evil.

Now clearly, by this notion I have tended to whittle down the universe of actions that can be considered evil. Back in second edition, someone wrote a basic summary of the D&D alignment system as a priority based structure. Basically “Good” was defined as putting the needs of others above the needs of self; “Evil” was defined as putting the needs of self above the needs of others.

Yes, the Joker isn't evil; he's insane. Satisfying ones raw emotions is not per se a “need.”

Also note that putting one group above another group falls off of the radar as well. How that action benefits the self is what is important. I've basically whittled this thing down to a toothpick, but it's still a very important toothpick.

So now we get to “need” which for the most part can be all secured with “possessions.” The good room, the good food, the good transpiration, the pampered life are all provided for via possessions. What you see you want to acquire; the painting, the woman, whatever, and at any price.

Remember that money is just a fungible possession. Likewise power is important because it can be fungible to money which in turn is fungible to possessions. Thus money is at the core of all “needs” of the individual (that can be met by that individual in such a way that can result in a “good” or an “evil” act).

Is this a “fear?” Hardly. This is a realization (and a generalization which means that it is not perfect) that the obsession of self possessions, or in effect the obsession of self results in the lowering of and abandonment of the needs of others. While I've defined this above as the opposite of “good” what it is really is the opposite of true charity/love.

This is as true today as it was in the beginning of the human equation, since the fundamental nature of man has not changed.

[Funkyterrance]

Wait is this all a reference to that "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" passage? If so, I love that phrase. I always thought it was quite beautiful and liberating. To me it basically means leave all earthly matters to themselves. It's not necessarily referring to money as evil but essentially a dead end in itself.