Is Capitalism Moral?

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;65577 wrote:

Health is not a good in itself, it must first be valued by the person and you cannot input your values onto another person.

For someone who has railed against absolute morals, you are way too ready to determine what values are superficial or real, bad or good.

I understand your point, but let's be honest here. Any person who values bad health does not have a healthy psychological state. I don't just mean negating good health; I mean actually valuing bad health is a sign of an unhealthy psychological state.

1 Reply

@hue-man,

hue-man;65618 wrote:

I understand your point, but let's be honest here. Any person who values bad health does not have a healthy psychological state. I don't just mean negating good health; I mean actually valuing bad health is a sign of an unhealthy psychological state.

Hueman, if you don't mind, let me add to your statement. There are those among us who have no values whatsoever other than those that please them and lash out at anyone who attempts to establish any universal value that would be accepted by the whole of mankind. What is accepted by the whole of mankind is true value for all benefit from it. Capitalism, in and of itself, is a valueless system in that it breeds discrimination fed by status rendering those who do not financially quality as a "success" , "unfit variants" as if evolution dictates in order to evolve our species needs to "make money". If you are an "unfit variant" in society you are genetically worthless and have no status, so they become feta cheese fanatics finding happiness any way they can regardless of the health hazards because it doesn't take status to acquire feta cheese. Feta cheese is not a universal value, How could it be. Some of our inhabitants on the planet hate the stuff. Me I personally like it but to equate it to real value is ludicrous. But those types of valueless analogies are made all the time by those whose personal values fall contrary to anyone attempting to reach that which is universally accepted because there is something about their nature that will not be accepted by all and it hides behind these erroneous analogies using them as to tool to strike with.
For instance, let's take a family that has a swimming pool in their back yard. A swimming pool is not a universal value, but it is a status symbol. Swimming is a universally good exercise. But it takes monetary status to have access to a pool that is healthy to swim in. Unfit variants have no such access and for them to swim they have to use what ever water they can find, making it a health hazard considering all the waste that is dumped there. It strikes me funny, those who have pools rarely use them for exercise, they only lounge around them and take a dip with that have to pee. Ha. That pool generates envy which is hallowed by those who bask in their status. We live in a society that worships status, yet it breeds discrimination, envy and animosity. Talk about a catch 22 situation. The moral to this story is heathy swimming should be allow to all because it is a universally good exercise. When I was a kid, public pools were in virtually in every neighborhood. Yes, haveing a compulsion for feta cheese indicates a unhealthy mental state. Unfit variants of course is a genetic problem? Society couldn't have anything to do with that. Yeah, right.
William

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man;65571 wrote:

It's not an aesthetic issue; it's an ethical issue. The love of feta-chesse has the tendency to lead to health problems. Health problems are not good or conducive to the body or the mind. The over-prioritization of material goods (greed and superficiality) is not conducive to actual happiness or ultimate goodness, and that is a fact.

[/SIZE]

No, that is an opinion, whether you like to call it aesthetic or ethical. As I said before, human beings will always want and extract pleasure from material things, because we are inextricably linked to material things. And if pleasure is not a sufficient goal, then you are a moralist: i.e. someone who want to impose the neurosis, which they developed to extract pleasure from a situation that was not naturally pleasurable, on others.

[quote]Knowing and understanding human psychology helps us understand what is conducive to our overall well being, and economic materialism, superficiality, and greed are not it.[/quote]

...in your opinion.

[quote]Superficial (bad) values are mainly induced by the monetary system, capitalism, and advertisement. [/QUOTE]

You call them bad, I don't. Opinion, judgement, bias, subjectivity.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

BrightNoon, are you saying money, induced greed and advertisement do not influence opinion, judgement, bias or subjectivity?

William

1 Reply

@William,

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the notion that that state of affairs is 'bad' is merely your opinion, not an objective fact.

2 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;66551 wrote:

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the notion that that state of affairs is 'bad' is merely your opinion, not an objective fact.

I agree that it's not an objective fact, but the difference between me and you is that I believe the opinion can be justified and you don't believe it can be justified.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;66551 wrote:

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the notion that that state of affairs is 'bad' is merely your opinion, not an objective fact.

Then the list I so often referred to is just a matter of opinion, huh? Geez, BN, you need to get out a little more.:perplexed: Smell the smog.

William

1 Reply

@William,

Well then, I guess we just have different opinions. Thats fine. Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about the smog, its rapidly being overcome by the rising odor of potato soup. Enjoy being a serf!

0 Replies

@hue-man,

Actually I believe Feta is one of the least fatty and, hence, healthiest cheeses. Why says we cannot input our values onto another person? We do it everyday. Some do it through leadership, others via manipulation, yet others through reward. Perhaps it's immoral to do that but it's not just possible, it's routine.

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

BrightNoon;66551 wrote:

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the notion that that state of affairs is 'bad' is merely your opinion, not an objective fact.

If narcissism and egocentricity are 'bad', then it is an objective fact (or as close to one as can be found) that the state of affairs is 'bad', or at least becoming increasingly worse:

Study Sees Rise in Narcissism Among Students : NPR

0 Replies

@hue-man,

Thanks for pointing out the narcissism factor Didymos. I have struggled with the whole Facebook/social networking phenomenon in the context of the wholesale abandonment of privacy that flows from it. (Privacy, like any other fundamental right, is easy to surrender and extremely difficult, even impossible to reclaim) Narcissism does, however, help explain an undercurrent of arrogance I have sensed in the strident attitudes expressed by some of the younger posters.

1 Reply

@hue-man,

hue-man;61282 wrote:

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.

This suddenly popped into my mind again when reading another thread.
You say that humans are social animals so "scientific facts" are on the side of collectivism, not individualism. But that's not a strong argument. Where to draw the line? Are humans connected by a collective awareness? Do we share our bodies of are we individuals?
So I say "scientific facts" are on the side of individualism, since we are individuals. A few attributes of "working together" can hardly be interpreted as proof that collectivism is natural for humans.

That being said I have a quick response to almost every sentence in your original post. And while I realize that you might have refined some of those views, when we were debating it you didn't seem very much like moving a step from your position so I take it you still hold it.

hue-man;61282 wrote:

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

Not at all. It can benefit everyone if we make that happen.

hue-man;61282 wrote:

People are born into economic classes and have no choice over what economic class they inherit.

Not if we create a system where that is not the case.

hue-man;61282 wrote:

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.

So because discrimination will hinder some from achieving, instead of trying to stop discrimination you chose to advocate not trying freedom?

hue-man;61282 wrote:

The capitalist system is dependent upon economic inequality.

Yes.

hue-man;61282 wrote:

Capitalism cannot survive without an economic class system that keeps certain people at a lower level than others.

Sure it can. Nobody has to be kept down, there's just got to be somebody down. Not because we keep them there but because they make bad decisions.

hue-man;61282 wrote:

Therefore, capitalism can never be synonymous with equality, fairness, and impartiality.

And why would it. Equality, fairness and impartiality are completely relative words with shifting meanings. (Depending on what leftie policy is being justified with them.)
What's so great about equality? If we all had the same chance to participate in the race, what's wrong with some not wanting to run and others being rewarded for doing so?
Fairness is bunk. I'm actually against fairness. Whenever I hear "fairness" I run the other way.
As for impartiality, I see no reason why capitalism would not be the best system for achieving that.

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;68395 wrote:

Narcissism does, however, help explain an undercurrent of arrogance I have sensed in the strident attitudes expressed by some of the younger posters.

I thought that the young are generally supposed to be cocksure and idealistic, the ones who think that all of the problems of the world can be solved and that they might be able to help do it.

Maybe the problem is that it is becoming more and more difficult to trust other people. As people interact less and less with each other and do so on an increasingly more superficial level (who wants to talk about what you did last night when there is a new episode of show X or game Y just came out or celebrity Z said something controversial), is it perhaps the case that we loose sight of the fact that those around us are more than nodes of information and gratification? Do we sometimes forget that our server at McDonalds is a person just as we are? Does this lack of mutual understanding build our mutual distrust and further distance us from each other at a fundamental level?

How much do our social games detract from our ability to truly know one another? When do we forget that when it comes down to it, we are all suffering from the same condition, from the same sense of existential drift? We all have our boulders to push uphill; some just have had their boulders plated with gold, with large tassels and grand adornments, but when it comes down to it they are still doing the same thing as everyone else.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

Ok, I admit I haven't read all twenty two pages of this, only the last two pages; so if I'm repeating something that was said earlier in the thread.

Capitalism is not moral. It is not immoral either. A philosophy can not be moral or immoral, only the actions of a sentient being can be judged as such.

As to whether it's good for society or not, I believe it is. It gives everyone the chance to succeed, if they possess the intelligence, natural talent and/or a strong force of will. And it rewards people based on their achievements, rather than rewarding everyone whether they're actually trying or not. Also, capitalsim advances technology quicker, including things that can save people's lives.

Now, well corruption and greed exist in a capitalistic society? Of course it will, just like it will and does in every type of society. And will some people get the short end of the stick, so to speak? Yes. Again, even if it's out of bad luck, there will always be people who end up with a bad life. These things come from people's competiveness with each other, not from capitalism or money.

Ideas like equality have nothing to do with capitalism or any other kind of economy. They are independant of one another. Whether equality and impartiality exists in a socity depends on the people of that society, not it's style of economy.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man;61282 wrote:

The capitalist system is dependent upon economic inequality.

as far, as humans are inequal - what is obvious for me - it's nothing wrong.
assuming money is an universal, self-sustainign and commonly accepted system of measuring the worth of a given human to others, there's no alternative at this stage of humankind development.

In my opinion, of course.

1 Reply

@sneer,

sneer;85330 wrote:

it's nothing wrong.
assuming money is an universal, self-sustainign and commonly accepted system of measuring the worth of a given human to others

But that assumption is absurd. Lets use comedy to drive home just how dangerous and innacurate that assumption is:

YouTube - Mr. Show - More money equals better than

Now hopefully we have all learned something? Surely we don't think that Paris Hilton is better than the great scientists and thinkers of our day?

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;85454 wrote:

But that assumption is absurd.
Now hopefully we have all learned something? Surely we don't think that Paris Hilton is better than the great scientists and thinkers of our day?

It's not absurd. It's hard fact. The worth of Paris Hilton' work seems be nothing for me and you, but there are many people that pay for that from one side, some who derive real value (work, money), and, it's part of culture. She (don't know exactly what she's doing, really) has real value in the world even if you don't like it.

0 Replies

Is Capitalism Moral?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know