Anarcho-Capitalism

Why would we desire an economic model that not only promotes but relies upon immorality?

Morality is relative.

We can't afford to shape a society upon what we think moral in the moment because we've seen morals lead people to evil and morals lead to stagnation.

Its a better model to build a society off of logic and reasoning, with a healthy respect for good intentions.

I disagree completely. It is true that people have various moral standards, but it does not follow that all of these various standards are correct. What is thought to be moral is relative, but what is moral does not seem to be.

An ethic is supposed to tell us how to act. If morality is relative, then ethics is impossible.

When has doing the right thing been evil?

I'm not sure what you mean by stagnation, but it is a very interesting charge. I'd like to hear more.

This seems to assume that morality is somehow opposed to reason. I'm not sure you'll find many moral philosophers who would agree with that notion.

Besides, what is thought to be logical and reasonable is relative :bigsmile:

Why would we desire an economic model that not only promotes but relies upon immorality?

Morality is a thought. Nature has no morality. So when you say what is thought to be moral is relative, you're affirming that what is moral is relative as well. Morality is a human construct and human nature is to err. To say otherwise is to essentially claim your beliefs are better than others.

There are different kinds of moral relativism.

There is cultural relativism which states that: an action is right or wrong if and only if S (the society in which the act occurs) believers an action is right or wrong.

There is, then, individual relativism which states that: an action is right or wrong if and only if P (the person judging the action) believes an action is right or wrong.

The possible objections to these conceptions of moral relativism are numerous, but I'll bring up a few for thought (not that they have not been introduced already, but that perhaps by introducing them in light of these two types of moral relativism the objections might be more useful).

With individual relativism, the primary objection should be fairly obvious: individual moral relativism is not a moral theory, but a theory that denies the value of moral theories. Individual moral relativism has no explanatory value, it does not tell us how or why we should act. Not to mention the fact that no one, I think, would honestly claim to support individual relativism: it could not be said of Adolf Hitler that some of his actions were immoral according to individual relativism.

Cultural relativism has a number of problems. First, there is the objection from abhorrent practices: we might bring up cases of culturally accepted genocide or infanticide. Then there is what could be called the opinion poll objection: no society enjoys unanimous consent on any moral question. Cultural relativism cannot allow for moral progress, nor can cultural relativism account for moral reformers: cultural relativism could not, for example, claim that MLK or Gandhi's moral reforms were good or bad.

Then there is the question of: what is a culture? When you begin to break down any society in light of cultural relativism you end up sliding into individual relativism.

Cultural relativism is an appealing theory because it eliminates the cultural-egoism that has so often stifled research into foreign and unfamiliar cultures. However, there are other means by which cultural-egoism can be eliminated, so I do not see the need to hold onto cultural relativism any longer.

This is a little out there, but if you'll follow I can explain. Current moral systems suggests that altruism and equality are moral. However, this contradicts nature. No where else in nature would you see organisms sacrificing so much wealth and energy to providing for the less fortunate. I'm not against charity, but its important to realize that sustained, non-progressing charity programs force those with capital to spend on innovation to spend that on societal maintenance. So no advancement, only stagnation.

Let me clarify, I don't think all morality is unreasonable. Plenty of socially morally correct decisions can be arrived at through logic. My problem is that we don't arrive at them through logic. Instead its this gut reaction based on religious or societal principles.

I'm a big believer in the values of anarcho-capitalism. Like communism, its an ideal form of government that can probably never be attained by humans. However, I think it has much more potential than communism
.

In a society like ours that places extremely high value on altruism, a lot of people find serious issues with anarcho-capitalism because its built upon principles of creative destruction, where failure is necessary to grow. Its closely linked to biological egoism, which I'm discussion in my blog.

Why would we desire an economic model that not only promotes but relies upon immorality?

Morality is a thought. Nature has no morality. So when you say what is thought to be moral is relative, you're affirming that what is moral is relative as well. Morality is a human construct and human nature is to err. To say otherwise is to essentially claim your beliefs are better than others.

The right thing is relative. Plenty of people believe they are doing the right thing and in reality are committing atrocities.

Think of the crusades. Both sides thought they had a moral right to Jerusalem, so if there was a moral right one of them was wrong. But in the name of a moral right thousands of innocents were executed and many prisoners of war.

This is a little out there, but if you'll follow I can explain. Current moral systems suggests that altruism and equality are moral. However, this contradicts nature. No where else in nature would you see organisms sacrificing so much wealth and energy to providing for the less fortunate. I'm not against charity, but its important to realize that sustained, non-progressing charity programs force those with capital to spend on innovation to spend that on societal maintenance. So no advancement, only stagnation.

Let me clarify, I don't think all morality is unreasonable. Plenty of socially morally correct decisions can be arrived at through logic. My problem is that we don't arrive at them through logic. Instead its this gut reaction based on religious or societal principles.

I like to trace it back to Mandeville and the Fable of the Bees: Private vices public benefits (1705). That seems to be the first time this idea was presented to the general public in a way that convinced large amounts of people that this absurdity had merit.

But charity is not simply social maintenance, as you say. Isn't it progress when more people are living better? How is it stagnation when the lives of people are improving?

Whether or not humans typically arrive at moral decisions through logic has little bearing upon our ability to do so. I agree with you - most of the time our moral decisions are gut reactions. But it does seem possible for human beings, with serious effort, to increasingly employ logic in their moral decisions.

That humans sometimes do not do something doesn't mean that humans cannot do something.

Why would we desire an economic model that not only promotes but relies upon immorality?

Please explain? What's immoral about the economic model of anarcho-capitalism?

It would be better to describe it as amoral.

How is it that Anarcho-Capitalism depends on immorality?

Perhaps such vices have moral worth? Who is the arbiter of vice and virtue? Avarice, a love for money. The root of all evil. "Have you ever asked what is the root of all money?"(Rand) I cannot even fathom how pride and luxury are sins. Envy, sure.

But at what rate? And progress for whom? The money's coming from somewhere. Someobody's pocket is getting lighter. Yes, relativity is a debatable. My dollar goes a longer way in Africa than it does buying myself gum, and my gum means less to me than child's supper to him, but we focus too heavily on consumption. Innovation, rather than exchange produces wealth. Wealth is not a finite entity, but our finances are. We need to start teaching people how to fish. We need to change the system and prevent stagnation(as Sam said).

Amoral would mean that it has nothing to do with morality, however every act or state of affairs can be judged in moral terms.

Can you give an example of what an anarcho-capitalist would consider a moral act?

Because it relies upon greed for economic productivity.

If we love money, we are diverting our capacity for love upon money rather than focusing that love upon people. And my guess is that people are more valuable than money.

And it is progress for everyone. It is progress for the recipient because they have an improved standard of living. It is progress for the giver because their standard of living is not meaningfully harmed, and because by practicing charity they are practicing love and compassion for other people.

Can you give an example of what an anarcho-capitalist would consider a moral act?

Let's be fair - anarcho-capitalism is not an ethical theory. It is an economic theory. Thus, anarcho-capitalism does not determine what is and what is not moral.

That was my question, Didymos, not Camerama's.

It sounds like you're speaking of capitalism independent of anarchism, correct?

Are you saying that libertarian capitalism is immoral because it relies on greed for economic productivity?

Greed is considered a vice by many because it has a tendency towards what many would perceive to be bad consequences. However, economic productivity is commonly seen as a good thing, so wouldn't that make greed, at least to some degree, a virtue in this case?

The highest moral and political value to me is the freedom of a person's non-coercive actions. I wouldn't endorse a public policy that demanded that people be virtuous.

You seem to presume that all people should be or are valued equally. I would say that I value most people more than money, but I can think of some people who I would choose money over. I value the worth of a productive citizen over a jailed murderer and rapist.

It may not hurt the giver, but it doesn't benefit them, either.

Whether or not compassion is a good thing seems to be based on individual judgement.

Basically. The economic model forces people to practice greed in order to thrive. The practice of greed is morally wrong.

So then you would oppose a system that coerces people to be greedy, right?

Yes, every human has equal moral worth - that is, no matter what a person does, that person is still entitled to the same moral consideration we give to any other person. If this is not the case, then two wrongs can make a right.

Sure it benefits the giver. By giving they practice giving, they practice love and compassion for other people. If love and compassion for others is good, then practicing love and compassion for others must be good.

It is a judgment that each individual can make, but just because someone disagrees it does not follow that the dissenter is right. Moral relativism is bunk.