Why is capitalism amoral?

jay gw

Unregistered
J
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
1,821
I think that, worldwide, capitalism would appeal to the mass of humanity if it had a moral/ethical component.

Think of all the atrocities committed directly in the name of capitalism. Slavery comes to mind right away, but all the imperialism, including Iraq, also come to mind. The only reason Americans or anybody can stomach the Iraqi operation is because of "bringing freedom" whatever the hell that means.

Face it, capitalism just isn't going to take the world over. People are already tired of it. The main reason they're tired of it is because it demands that corporations behave as irrationally/criminally/socially irresponsibly as possible to maximize profits.

A funny study showed how closely the modern corporation's behavior is to a psychopaths. Not so funny, though.

How many scandals have come out, this year, about a multi billion dollar business/extremely rich business person swindling to get more? I can name about 50. I've worked in private business, like most people have, and have never encountered a truly honest business. Every one cut corners and went over the legal line.

When the absurd rules, madness follows.
 
Perhaps your confusion here is that you've yet to realize that Capitalism is little more than a tool. It is the means by which we accomplish the end, and in that regard, it is only as good as those who utilize it.

Just a quick thought here, not a complete argument.
 
I'd have to agree with Roadtoad. The only reason Capitalism was so popular originally, is it places some power back into the individual's hands. However, it is also a useful tool for some individuals to seize more power. Like any system of government, religion, etc., Capitalism can be misused by the Powers that Be.

After all, the Powers that Be operate under their own system - they just use whatever system is in charge to their own best advantage.
 
Capitalism is not perfect, nor have I ever read anything or met anyone that suggested it was.

It is, however, arguably the best socio-economic system in existence. Countries using it have both enjoyed great success and abysmal failure, but it remains, as far as we know, the best there is. This is not to say, of course, that something better will not come along.
 
Pure capitalism rules.

What you see in America today is a far cry from pure capitalism. Adam Smith had it right; today's "neo-cons" that want to help the rich get richer have it wrong.

Capitalism is the best system as long as you stop the greedy rich. Today, in America, we are not stopping the greedy rich.
 
I agree that capitalism is just a tool. So is communism. What matters is how it's used by the people who wield it.

jay gw said:
...A funny study showed how closely the modern corporation's behavior is to a psychopaths. Not so funny, though...
Click to expand...

That sounds interesting. Do you have a reference or link? I'd like to read that. :)
 
Well said. Capitalism and communism are basically economic doctrines. What makes them immoral are the elites that use them to keep themselves in power and obscenely increase their wealth while overexploring the vast majority of a population. If the policy is socially injust, it really does not matter what economic doctrine brand is used, chances are it will be an imoral (keeping in mind that morale is relative) regime.

I lived under a right-handed (supposedly capitalist) dictatorship, and its not good. I met people (and read news from several sources) who lived under right-handed ones, and its not good also.

However, what I think that can be said, is that some brands of these economic doctrines, such as the liberal capitalism (USA folks plese note that this could be translated as neo-conservative capitalism for you -little or no regulations of the economy by the state) bear much more potential the potential to cause social injustices.
 
Re: Re: Why is capitalism amoral?

Nex said:
I agree that capitalism is just a tool. So is communism. What matters is how it's used by the people who wield it.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100 percent...but capitalism beats communism in this sense because SOME people are happy in capitalism.

In communism, the majority of people want more than they're allocated under communist rule, and they'll do whatever it takes to "get theirs."

At least striving to be the best and most wealthy is OK in capitalism.
 
Stereolab said:
Capitalism is the best system as long as you stop the greedy rich. Today, in America, we are not stopping the greedy rich.
Click to expand...
How would you do that? Are there some rich people who are not greedy?

~~ Paul
 
I believe it has capacity for both:

The moral side of capitalism:

It is tied in to personal liberty--the freedom to make one's own personal choices as a consumer. While functioning properly, capitalism creates downward pressure on prices, and upward pressure on quality. This keeps the economy healthy and efficient without need for massive levels of management and planning.

The immoral side of capitalism:

At its mathematical core is the purpose of distributing resources as efficiently as possible--however what is most efficient is not necessarily moral. What if the most efficient distribution of wealth is to have it concentrated in the hands of a few?

Market failures result in suffering--and to refuse to intervene in the name of pure capitalism is immoral.
 
At its mathematical core is the purpose of distributing resources as efficiently as possible--however what is most efficient is not necessarily moral. What if the most efficient distribution of wealth is to have it concentrated in the hands of a few?
Click to expand...

I've always been curious, actually - what exactly do we mean when we talking of 'distributing resources efficiently'?

It strikes me that whenever we talk of efficiency we do so with reference to some end, and I'm not entirely sure that capitalism as such comes with an end (which is, I suppose, part of the amoral (though not immoral) aspect of it).

After all - we might say (rightfully) that getting in one's car and driving is an efficient manner of getting somewhere far away, but that getting in one's car and driving is an inefficient manner of, say, baking a cake. (This would be pushing the example, of course - it would in fact be an ineffective manner, not merely an inefficient one.)

As such, then, it makes little sense to say that what is most efficient is not necessarily moral - though it is perfectly accurate. If we defined our ends in moral terms (as is, I would think (as a good liberal) the only reasonable way to define our ends), then the most efficient distribution of resources would necessarily be the most moral. Alternatively, if we defined our ends in immoral terms, then it would decidedly not be that way. And, as is, I suspect, the case if we didn't bother to define our ends at all then there wouldn't be any sense to using the term 'efficient' in the slightest.
 
Didn't capitalism become immoral in the early 1990's? Without the communists to serve as villians in action movies, Hollywood turned to businessmen to serve as the evil, world-dominating evil-doers.
 
Eleatic Stranger said:
I've always been curious, actually - what exactly do we mean when we talking of 'distributing resources efficiently'?

It strikes me that whenever we talk of efficiency we do so with reference to some end, and I'm not entirely sure that capitalism as such comes with an end (which is, I suppose, part of the amoral (though not immoral) aspect of it).

After all - we might say (rightfully) that getting in one's car and driving is an efficient manner of getting somewhere far away, but that getting in one's car and driving is an inefficient manner of, say, baking a cake. (This would be pushing the example, of course - it would in fact be an ineffective manner, not merely an inefficient one.)

As such, then, it makes little sense to say that what is most efficient is not necessarily moral - though it is perfectly accurate. If we defined our ends in moral terms (as is, I would think (as a good liberal) the only reasonable way to define our ends), then the most efficient distribution of resources would necessarily be the most moral. Alternatively, if we defined our ends in immoral terms, then it would decidedly not be that way. And, as is, I suspect, the case if we didn't bother to define our ends at all then there wouldn't be any sense to using the term 'efficient' in the slightest.
Click to expand...

When you are discussing economic theory, efficiency is measured by maximizing utility--that resources go to those who need or want them the most. It's an odd sort of intangible concept--one of those that has the odd quality of never having a known value... but which can be used as a variable to see what will affect it. I don't know if I've explained it as best as possible... but suffice it to say it is useful, but not the end-all and be-all of measuring economic results, IMO.
 
Capitalism is not amoral, nor is it moral. Capitalism is an economic system, and morality is a separate idea. You might as well say agriculture is amoral, or house painting. You could apply morality to capitalists, but you will find mixed results.
 
When you are discussing economic theory, efficiency is measured by maximizing utility--that resources go to those who need or want them the most.
Click to expand...

But that just sort of restates the problem with the question mark left off the end.

What you said basically amounts to: capitalism is efficient at distributing resources along certain lines. This leaves open the question of whether or not the way it distributes resources (even if we grant that it ideally does so in a way that makes sure that those who want those resources the most get them) is the (morally, as I don't know what other term could stand as an end) best way.

Adding that maximization of utility(defined as above) is just adding another intermediary to the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom