Is Capitalism Moral?

Capitalism cannot survive without an economic class system that keeps certain people at a lower level than others. Therefore, capitalism can never be synonymous with equality, fairness, and impartiality.

Individualism or self-reliance ignores the fact that human beings are social animals, dependent upon each other for our long term survival. The scientific facts are on the side of collectivism, not individualism.

"Some problems said to be associated with capitalism include: unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism and various forms of economic and cultural exploitation; and phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability.

This assumes that imparitality etc... is inherently moral. Who says it is inherently moral, equal distribution of that which we value is not inherently natural. If it were all naturally equally distributed it would not be valuable. It is the unequal distribution of the valuable that creates value in any system, Intelligence, Material, Goods, Services, Relationship etc... I don't think capitalism, socialism or any political ism can be considered moral or immoral using these defining traits.



Individualism and self reliance does not ignore this fact, it is a result of this fact.



Again with the unfairness, this is not addressing the morality of fairness again. Nature is not fair, I was born with no debilitating diseases, my son was. This fact makes me a more fully contributing member of a social group. It also gives me an unfair advantage in any system including a socialistic one. Heirarchy is built into humanity, we are pack animals, there will always be a power structure that unfairly wieghts the more valuable against the less valuable. There will always be a power structure that weights the more pwoerful against the less powerful. I have a village with 9 farmers, one doctor, one charismatic person with leadership skills, and one "idiot". A ala peanut butter sandwitches, we have a hierarchy, a power structure, and an unequal distribution of power.

This is not a defense for capitalism, this is not a defense for any ism, only the morality of political systems. based on the arguments of unfairness and unequal distribution, there are no political systems where unequal distribution of the valued does not exist.

Individualism or self-reliance ignores the fact that human beings are social animals, dependent upon each other for our long term survival.

The scientific facts are on the side of collectivism, not individualism.

I therefore conclude that capitalism is immoral.

You cant defend capitalism by saying there is nothing better.Humanity has advanced in its attitudes towards government.America made great leaps at the time by rejecting the legality of the crown, is that it? Does humanity claim it has reached the pinnacle of civilisation by its present method of government?It is times such as this that we should all look to a better world where greed is not the highest achievement man can judge a community by.

As stated it wasn't a defense of capitalism. There was no Implication about progessive evolution of political systems. There is no such thing, There are only political systems that evolve to suit the times and situations. At whatever point that material possession is thought of differently there will be another system that better fits that scenario. It will still however suffer from unequal distribution of whatever is considered valuable. And as far as what I can and cant do, I can do anything I want that is physically possible.

I was not arguing that greed in natural, although I think it is. The argument is that value is defined by its unequal distribution, or scarcity, any sort of value be it material or otherwise. All things have a natural unequal distribution of that which is considered valuable. In fact we recognize the virtue of unselfishness as valuable. One need not be greedy to recognize the unequal distribution of that which is valuable, and one also need not be greedy to act as if that which is valuable is valuable, however the unqual distribution of that which is valuable in any of its senses creates unequal distribution of power and prestige. In any form of govt. this function will be expressed.

One is that freedom is not always synonymous with goodness and it's not always equal for everyone.

Economic freedom seems to only benefit those who are fortunate enough to have the odds in their favor.

You also have issues such as employment and discrimination, which can affect whether or not a person can achieve the economic level of their choosing.

The capitalist system is dependent upon economic inequality. Capitalism cannot survive without an economic class system that keeps certain people at a lower level than others. Therefore, capitalism can never be synonymous with equality, fairness, and impartiality.

Individualism or self-reliance ignores the fact that human beings are social animals, dependent upon each other for our long term survival. The scientific facts are on the side of collectivism, not individualism.

A highly regulated system runs the risk of obliterating individual strengths and weaknesses, and being draconian to the point of being self-defeating. Too much power lies in the regulating body. An unregulated system runs the risk of obliterating recourse by those not in power, and overemphasizes the influence and power of people who are aggressive and parasitic.

I don't believe that for a second. There are no scientific facts to support any "-ism". We are 1) individual thinking beings, and we are 2) social beings. Beyond that, you can't prescribe any economic system based on science alone, partly because you can't create a system that will fully satisfy ALL desired endpoints (productivity, happiness, individual liberty, fairness).

Capitalism is only as moral or immoral as the people practicing it. By itself it's nothing.

Scientific facts can most certainly be used to support a philosophical position, or an "ism" as you put it. Scientific facts support empiricism, materialism, & naturalism.

Your assumption that science can't be used to support philosophical positions is probably based on the idea that science and philosophy are mutually exclusive.

Science is a child of philosophy, directly born from the fields of epistemology and natural philosophy

I am merely saying that when you speak of a society or community, the collective is more important than the individual.

Capitalism is a concept or idea that is dependent upon a practice that is based on the actions of people. Therefore, capitalism can be considered to be morally right or wrong as a conceptual ideology and practice.

This assumes that imparitality etc... is inherently moral. Who says it is inherently moral, equal distribution of that which we value is not inherently natural. If it were all naturally equally distributed it would not be valuable. It is the unequal distribution of the valuable that creates value in any system, Intelligence, Material, Goods, Services, Relationship etc... I don't think capitalism, socialism or any political ism can be considered moral or immoral using these defining traits.

Individualism and self reliance does not ignore this fact, it is a result of this fact.

Again with the unfairness, this is not addressing the morality of fairness again. Nature is not fair, I was born with no debilitating diseases, my son was. This fact makes me a more fully contributing member of a social group. It also gives me an unfair advantage in any system including a socialistic one. Heirarchy is built into humanity, we are pack animals, there will always be a power structure that unfairly wieghts the more valuable against the less valuable. There will always be a power structure that weights the more pwoerful against the less powerful. I have a village with 9 farmers, one doctor, one charismatic person with leadership skills, and one "idiot". A ala peanut butter sandwitches, we have a hierarchy, a power structure, and an unequal distribution of power.

This is not a defense for capitalism, this is not a defense for any ism, only the morality of political systems. based on the arguments of unfairness and unequal distribution, there are no political systems where unequal distribution of the valued does not exist.

You've got it completely backwards. Scientific facts do not support naturalism or empiricism. Rather, naturalism and empiricism yield scientific facts. But the fact that empiricism teaches us that fish breath through gills does not tell us that one ought to be an empiricist.

I did not say that science cannot used to support philosophical positions. Nor did I synonymize "-ism" with "philosophical positions". If you feel I've done so, then feel free to show me where I say that.

Are you speaking for all possible situations in all of humanity?

A "baseball game" is a 'concept or idea that is dependent upon a practice that is based on the actions of people'. Does that mean that a "baseball game" can be considered morally right or wrong?

Your "therefore" is a nonsequitur. One doesn't follow the other.

Capitalism is a model. Within capitalist societies you have examples of moral good and moral bad. That's true with every other model. How do you feel about forced collectivization?

The facts yielded by science do support philosophical positions or "isms" like naturalism and empiricism.

The results yielded from the practice give the positions more credence.

You forgot about materialism.

You said "There are no scientific facts to support any "-ism"." By ism you must mean philosophical positions or beliefs.

1) A baseball game is not the same as an economic system. You can give a better example with another economic system or a political philosophy.

I am saying that the capitalist system itself is inherently morally corrupt for the previous reasons stated.

there is no morality without impartiality and universality. If you negate those meta-ethical principles then all you have left is relativism and nihlism, which aren't even moral theories at all because they are not concerned with justifying moral sentences and decisions. Economic value is based on necessity for certain material goods, scarcity of those material goods, and sometimes greed.

As a philosophical position, individualism denies the fact that we are social animals by denying the fact that when one speaks of a society or a community, the collective is more important the individual. Individualism is a strict and solitary social philosophy that stands in contrast to collectivism. It is also stands in contrast to scientific facts from the fields of sociology, economics, psychology and history, which all prove the importance of the collective when speaking of a society or community.

I didn't say that nature was fair. Nature is most certainly not fair, because nature has no intent or purpose. Since when did we start reverting back to becoming primal subjects of nature? Just because nature is unfair doesn't mean we have to be unfair. We starting moving away from biological evolution and onto to socio-cultural evolution during the neolithic revolution, some 10,000 years ago. What is this, a call for social darwinism? Human values stand in contrast to the misfortunes of nature. We are personal animals, free to choose our own values whether they defy nature or not.

No, they do not, in part because not all questions of importance to humans have empirically demonstrable answers. Humans are capable of tremendous optimism against rational odds, and that is a survival mechanism -- to disabuse someone of hope against odds would be a naturalist position -- and it would be detrimental.

My point applies to materialism too.

I meant any economic system, because that is what you've been talking about!!!!!!!!! :nonooo:

Ah, so suddenly you're talking about economics again. Convenient.

And I am saying that it's possible to have a capitalist system that is NOT morally corrupt if 100% of the inhabitants are morally good.

By the way, you forgot to tell me what you think about forced collectivization, i.e. a rapid "antidote" for capitalism.

Let's also not forget that in any society a man will defend his child before he defends his neighbor, and he will defend his neighbor before he defends a stranger.

"Individualism" in a social sense can justifiably refer to one's small social and familial group.

So the scientific method does not give credence to the epistemic position of empiricism? So you have a way of obtaining knowledge without your senses?

Ah, so now we're talking about epistemic positions... I thought we were talking about economic systems, which is exactly what I was responding to.

Science supports "hirsutism" and "hypoaldosteronism", which end in the three letters "ism". Science does not support economic theories (the isms I was DIRECTLY responding to in your posts), except insofar as science can study what has worked and what hasn't -- but that's immaterial because you're making MORAL arguments. Science cannot tell us what is moral or immoral!!!

If totalt universal impatiality were necessary to be moral then everything would be universally moral. There must be discrimination (partiality) to even recognize morality from non-morality. The relativism is couched in the universal where all action is moral given a certain set of circumstances.