Is Capitalism Moral?

So the New York Times, a left wing news publication, is a communist propaganda publication.

Yeah they are. So left wing is not left wing now?

I never heard of the guy, and he's not even that known in Europe. Hes just venting for anti-American trustafarians.

You name one thing that guy says that even makes sense.

You're making a common mistake that relativists make. You're confusing descriptive ethics with prescriptive ethics. What this means is that you take the observable fact that there are different standards or ideas of morality in different societies (such as slavery in one and no slavery in the other) and you say that morality should be relative to the society or individual, regardless of how it infringes on the rights of another individual. In other words you start by saying how things are and conclude that that's how things should be. You said that moral sentences can be countered simply by asking why. Let me ask you a question . . . why should morality be relative merely because different cultures and different time periods have different conceptions of morality?

If I say that kidnapping you and torturing you is wrong for me, then it is also wrong for you. Why is it wrong? It is wrong not only because it causes pain and suffering, but also because it violates the value of autonomy and free will. Now you may like being kidnapped and tortured, but that doesn't give me the right to do it to you. If you like torture and coercion, then you just need psychiatric assistance.

If I say that kidnapping you and torturing you is wrong for me, then it is also wrong for you. Why is it wrong? It is wrong not only because it causes pain and suffering, but also because it violates the value of autonomy and free will. Now you may like being kidnapped and tortured, but that doesn't give me the right to do it to you. If you like torture and coercion, then you just need psychiatric assistance.

Well, no. You can't declare what others should want and need.
Not even that harm is wrong.
Who are you to declare that their decision to like torture is wrong?
There is no universal morales.

There are no universal morals , are you really being serious? I think sometimes you are being controversial just for the hell of it.Where have you found torture as an acceptable moral attitude, dont mention mars now will you?

To declare any morales universal you have to judge the purpose of human all existence.
So you know that causing harm is wrong? How do you know that? Do you have insight into the true nature of the universe?

You have completely misread me. No where did I say that morality should be relative. I have said that it is relative in that different groups of people have different value-systems, none of which can be judged right or wrong by a universal standard, because there is no universal standard.



If you judge kipnapping and torturing me to be wrong, thats fine. I would too. But if I didn't, say if I was a suicidal masochist, on what grounds can you claim that your judegment is correct and mine incorrect? You are setting up pain as a universal 'bad.' On what grounds? That is itself a judgement of yours: the same with autonomy. How does the U.N. declaration differ essentially from any other declaration of an ethic? It is not more an absolute standard than any other, and it is certainly not representative of a world consensus on morality; it represents the views of certain people and cultures.

Well, no. You can't declare what others should want and need.
Not even that harm is wrong.
Who are you to declare that their decision to like torture is wrong?
There is no universal morales.

To declare any morales universal you have to judge the purpose of human all existence.
So you know that causing harm is wrong? How do you know that? Do you have insight into the true nature of the universe?

Did you know that Peter Pan could fly by thinking good thoughts?...did you?

You're saying that because different cultures have different ethical systems, no moral standards can be judged as right or wrong. You're therefore implying that because morality can vary from culture to culture, that morality should be judged as relative to the society alone, and therefore any moral standards go. With that argument, you can seek to justify things like honor killings of women, rape and murder of toddlers, stealing, terrorism, etc. etc; that's where moral relativists go wrong. This is why many opponents of relativism argue that it is nihilism masquerading as theory.

So I can't declare that a child should be defended from violence or torture? I can't declare that a woman shouldn't be stoned for adultery. I can't declare that people should have the right against coercion or murder? I can't declare that people should have the right against enslavement? I can't declare that all citizens should have equal rights in light of the fact that they don't violate the rights of others? Please answer these questions for me, and then I'll tell you if you're a relativist?

This is yet another misconception of what moral universalism is. To declare a value to be universal, the value needs to have equal benefit for all who choose to value it. For example, not everyone has to value laws against torture and coercion for it to be universally beneficent in its application.

Do you even try to make an argument any more? You have these views but when it comes to justifying them you write nonsense.
Believe what you want to believe, but please quit ever addressing one of my posts unless you are going to have a shred of openness to opposing ideas.

Nero i thought i made an appropriate reply to a question that defied my sense of logic.You came out with a totally nonsensical remark to a reasoned argument.Torture for any moral acceptable person is wrong..why make a stupid sugestion that morals are not universally the same..you defy simple reason..Peter Pans good thoughts lifted me higher..

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

Morals are by any standards, any ones, any where defined by simple examination.We can judge water is wet, hot is hot, cold is cold.Morals are not imposition on others and they can be judged by the universal accepted manner.Mercy killing is not a moral issue, its a crime,crime can not be judged as a moral issue, just like picking your nose cant be judged as regional fascination.

Removing the monetary system wouldn't specifically address economic inequality, I agree, but the alternative to the system would specifically address economic inequality. The division of labor is already being replaced with robotics and automation. Once AI becomes more advanced and automation takes over the service industry, then all hell will break loose. If you want to talk about not supporting the division of labor, talk about that. I, however, embrace the development of these technologies as a way to move on to a new phase of economics that has nothing to do with monetary exchange for goods and services.

You're an anarchist, correct?

Pure unadultared bias and subjectivity. Can't you see that that opinion is true for you, and that someone else could have another opinion? On what grounds can you claim that your opinion is correct, universally? You call mercy killing a crime, Al Sibn Muhammad calls it a moral duty. Why are you right? ...I can't belive that intelligent people still think this way.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if there is still a dvision of labor, there is still labor, and if there is still labor, wouldn't there have to be exchange? Even in a completely communistic system, where all goods and services and appropriated and then distributed by the government, isn't it simply more efficient to use money or some token instead of raw goods for all exchanges between individual and state? Is the worker going to be given hundreds of pounds of food every week, or given money or some other kind of ticket, card or token with which to go 'buy' the food at a local distribution point?

Most people don't realize that scarcity in economics is not the same as scarcity in general.

That it not what I'm saying. Anyone can judge anyone else's morality to be wrong because it does not agree with their morality, or because it does not agree what some people believe to be a universal morality, like that in the U.N. declaration. In the same way, I can state with absolute confidence that the TV works because there's a little man inside pulling wires. In other words, you can judge that the values of cultures that allow honor killing, e.g., are bad because you value not harming as a good; i never said you couldn't. I'm just saying that the argument you could make as to why that culture's value was wrong, or why yours is right, is no more logically sound than the opposite argument with which that culture could rebut yours. Hence the name, relativism. It seems that you think that I am justifying any conduct. I am not. I have my own personal morality, and I might reccomend it to others, but I won't declare that it is THE correct morality. Some people would, but those people fail to see the inherent flaw in their logic. Your argument that moral relativism, goes wrong because it might "justify things like honor killing killings of women, rape and murder of toddlers stealing, terrorism, etc." is a circular argument, which presumes that those things are wrong; they are wrong only to those that believe them to be wrong. But again, that dosen't mean you can't object, you just can't logically claim that they are absolutely wrong, per se. No event or action has any value per se; things acquire value or meaning only from a perspective, and there are always discordant perspectives.



You can do all of those things, but those 'should statements' are no more correct than the opposite; i.e. they are correct only for those who believe them.



That's a contradiction. If a 'unversal moral' is a value which equally benefits all who choose to value it, but not everyone has to value such values, then how can it be equally beneficial to everyone? For example. In Algeria there's a guy who want to kill a women because she dishonored the family; he wants to do this more than anything else in the world; he will feel unending shame if he does not. From his perspective, he would be harmed by having that value imposed on him, by the police let say, who prevent him from committing the honor killing. Unless everyone agrees on morality, any universal morailty will always benefit some and harm others, as benefit and harm are defined from their perspectives. Just like morals, there are no universal or absolute standards for harm and benefit; x event might harm bob, but it might benefit john.

Labor doesn't entail currency, as someone can labor in complete isolation, but the division of labor generally does entail currency as a coincidence of wants would be hard to come by without at least some ticket of exchange.

As for the rest, yes, I would say you are correct.

But Hue-man is operating on a utopian vision where there is no scarcity. I doubt he really quite grasps the economic concept of scarcity. Most people don't realize that scarcity in economics is not the same as scarcity in general.