Does the reflection of a natural process excuse behavior that’s wrong? Do we simply throw up our hands and say “boy nature sure is a bitch, a shame we’re powerless to do anything about it?”
No, I think not. Rising above our base nature is a task all humans should engage in. I’ll admit it seems that the ideals of Enlightenment are dying out, but surely we must fight against that with every ounce of our will, lest we descend back into another dark age?
I agree with you here in general, and I think this is part of the definition of civilisation. But I still think the way it's phrased in the parent is wrong, that it's a "flaw" and "what's wrong with society", if it's actually a function of nature.
I think it's still important to acknowledge what is part of our nature, and even if we can improve on that, it probably doesn't work to go too much against it, or deny it.
I suppose it’s worth noting that my phrasing was a direct response to “greediness isn’t a flaw of the system, it’s a core value”
I do think it’s a flaw. Its an overreach to say it’s the singular cause of all the worlds problems, but boy does it seem like it sometimes!
Now I’m left wondering something I’m sure philosophers have grappled with better than I can: can a creature’s inherent nature be wrong? Are right and wrong even applicable to nature? Seems like it’s more that it just is and we can only apply our morality after the fact.
I think the failure of communism more or less proves that greed is not just an accidental flaw of the system, but rather an amplification of our natural selection, and as such cannot just be suppressed or removed, because it removes too much of our driving force.
> can a creature’s inherent nature be wrong?
Yes I think it will always be morally wrong, because it will be selfish and greedy at it's very core.
