Originally posted by Ownification
Well most of us don't seem to care regarding our actions having negative actions on someone's life somewhere else. When you gain a job(pursuit of
money), someone else either lost it or was also seeking the job but was turned down. Not many people exist out there who would think about such
things. To give you an example, would the police have a job if there was no criminals.
There is a universal law that states "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." This is true for everything, from physics to nature to human
I'll show what i mean by using the example of gaining a job. Where it says someone else either lost their job, or somebody who was also seeking the
job was turned down, in order for you to gain the job, is true - both the other person seeking the job and the person who lost the job were each
affected negatively by you gaining the job. But, if the other person who was seeking the job gained it, that means you didn't. So you were negatively
affected by the other person gaining the job, along with the person who originally lost it. On the other hand, if the original person never lost their
job in the first place, then both you and the other person seeking the job would be negatively affected, since neither of you would be able to gain
Another example is the food chain and predator-prey relationships. If a predator, such as a shark, does not manage to capture and eat its prey (say, a
large fish, for example), then the shark goes hungry and possibly starves. So the shark is negatively affected. The sharks prey, however, is
positively affected and gets to live. But the large fish also needs to eat. Since it was not eaten by the shark, the large fish has a chance to eat a
small fish, so the small fish is also negatively affected. Whatever the small fish would normally eat (something as miniscule as plankton) gets to
live since the small fish can't eat it. Therefore, the plankton is positively affected. But, if the shark does manage to successfully eat the large
fish, then the shark is affected positively, and the large fish is affected negatively. The large fish is now unable to eat the small fish, so the
small fish is able to eat the plankton. This means that the small fish is affected positively, and the plankton is affected negatively. It is a never
ending cycle, and is present everywhere. If there were fewer sharks, then the large fish could not be kept in check, and would overpopulate. All these
fish need to eat, so they in turn rapidly reduce the amounts of small fish. Without small fish, there is much more plankton, and it begins to grow out
of control. The big fish also have nothing left to eat, and they start disappearing as well. Also, too much plankton is bad for the ecosystem. It
depletes all of the oxygen, causing many other organisms to die.
Sorry to rant a little bit, but i was just trying to prove my point
Every action or choice has both positive and negative consequences that affect others.
Back on topic though...
There is no need to kill somebody out of greed. But, there are still consequences all around. The person who is killed for money is affected
negatively, as are their loved ones who mourn. The killer gains money from it, and is therefore affected positively. When the killer spends this money
on whatever they choose, the people receiving the money being spent are also affected positively. The place where killing somebody for greed differs
from the above examples I provided is that it is simply wrong. It is an unnecessary evil. Whereas the person gets a job in order to provide for
themselves and their family, and the sea creatures kill because they need to eat and survive, killing out of greed is for something that the
perpetrator wants but does not need. The negative consequences heavily outweigh the positive ones. There are numerous other ways to obtain money that
are more balanced and morally acceptable.