If Capitalism is Immoral what System of Economics is Moral?

[kungtotte]

Ripper,

Could you please offer a real world example of this socialist paridise you describe?

Sweden? :smoking:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kungtotte,

Sweden? :smoking:

So, no rich people in Sweden? Also isn't there a Swedish king?

[Ripper]

Ripper,

Could you please offer a real world example of this socialist paridise you describe?

Unfortunatly I can not, well no large-scale examples of most-part socialism anyway.

But we must also remember that every socialist revolution have taken place in dictatorships, and most times in agrarian, pre-capitalist societies. They have then failed to move beyond the non-democratic form of goverment.

But I find it extremely unlikely that a socialist change in a modern democracy would turn that society in to a dictatorship. Democracy is fundamental for socialism. I would even claim that socialism is the consequence of democracy taken seriously.

I also want to say that socialism would not be a paradise and that it's dangerous to believe so. But I strongly believe that socialism is the only way to get rid of poverty, famine, wars etc. Thats because these things would cease to be viewed as "natural disasters" that "just happens", instead they become the subjects of collective rationality. For the food corporations it's more rational to burn surplus food than to give it away (and dump prices). For warlords and weapons industry war is something you benefit from. In capitalism unemployment is good because it helps keeping the wages down. But as subjects for collective rationality all these things are... well stupid. It does not give us anything, it only hurts.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ripper,

Yes, the collective is wonderful until it decides it wants to take things that are important to you. Then it is rather overbearing paticularly if you don't agree with its choice of stuff to take.

[The Anti-Targ]

Problem is, before you get to define moral economics you first need to come to an agreement on what is moral and what is not.

Commodore says capitalism is moral, but he only cites one principle to advance its morality: freedom. Certainly freedom as a concept is important in a moral society, IMHO. However if a vital element of society's functioning is predicated solely on that one moral principle then it will become corrupted. Yes, I think freedom can be carried to excess and hence why I think ultimately a (totally) free market is destructive. Freedom must be moderated by responsibility.

The idea that contract enforcement arises from a moral position presupposes that all contracts are fair in the first place. If a contract is unfair then morally it is preferrable not to enforce the contract. Whereas legally the norm is to enforce the contract regardless of its fairness. The assumption being that the parties to the contract entered into the contract on an equal footing, which is often not the case because there is usually a knowledge deficit or lack of competency on the part of one party to the contract. Contractual law probably arose from the desire to ensure fairness and justice in business interactions, but shorn of objective scrutiny contract law can be corrupted into achieving the direct opposite of the purpose for which the law was created. Of course that is the moral theory behind the genesis of contractual law, the conspiracy theory is that a bunch of bigwigs colluded to pass a law that allowed them to legally force people to do what they want, and by and large they have succeeeded.

The fact that capitalism and the free market needs laws to prevent people and business from being totally shafted by an unregulated system is evidence in itself that capitalism and a totally free market economy has immoral outcomes as an inevitable consequence. Is the answer to further regulate a fundamentally corrupt system or is the answer to revolutionise the system?

Socialism, unless moderated by laws that enshrine certain freedoms for individuals and businesses is also immoral; even though many of the ideals of socialism are meritorious.

Socialism leads to oppression of people and business by the state.

Capitalism leads to oppression of people and the state by business.

Choose your poison?

What leads to a moral system of economics is one that is founded on "spiritual" principles. By "spiritual" I don't mean metaphysics, or religion, and there is no expectation that people adopt spirituality as a philosophy. Spritual principles are (in addition to freedom) such things as: justice (which doesn't just mean enforcing laws); fairness; equality; honesty; mercy; generosity; responsibility; accountability and a whole host of other (universally held I hope) ideals of human behaviour. When you take a single virtue and base anything on that alone you eventually corrupt the virtue and it becomes a source of oppression. If justice is not tempered by mercy then injustice can arise. If honesty is not tempered by tactfulness then it can have a harmful effect. Of course the ideal perfect justice cannot lead to injustice, but as we are incapable of applying justice perfectly our application of justice needs to be moderated through the (also imperfect) application of other virtues.

If an ecomonic system is based disproportionately on the virtue of freedom without the moderating influence of all the other virtues then it will lead to oppression. In any totally free system the strong few will dominate the weak many. It's a fundamental law of nature, not a moral principle. I would argue that moral principles must overcome the laws of nature in order to advance the cause of civilisation. Fundamentally, this is what the story of human social evolution is all about: overcoming the laws of nature by applying "spiritual" (or abstract if you prefer) principles to create a moral society.

That's an imperfect summary of my imperfect views on the subject of economics in a just society.

[Shryke]

The only elements that define capitalism are that all exchange must be voluntary, contracts are enforced, and private property rights are protected.

Of course, since none of this is actually possible in real life, it's all pretty irrelevant.

And that's the bottom line imo. An economic system can be amoral, but only in theory. Once you put it into practice, it opens itself to degrees of morality/immorality depending on the system in question.

Capitalism itself I'd categorize as having a very high tendency towards immorality, mostly because the heart of capitalism is that money makes more money. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. It's very construction violates it's ability to be "moral" as defined by people like Commodore above.

[Lord Mord]

It's difficult to regard economic systems as moral per se.

The mantra of capitalism about everything other than making money is, "I could give a shit." Strikes me as hardly moral.

The mantra of every other system is, "You will give a shit, or else!" Brutality doesn't strike me as moral either.

Regardless of its morality, however, I prefer a lot of freedom in my economy because if I should ever get my shit sufficiently together to improve my conditions, I don't want somebody who can beat me or shoot me telling me I mustn't.

I just wish I could trust the rest of you clowns to do the right thing with the freedom you have, and I really can't. What you all want will kill me and mine because you've outright bragged about how you could give a shit.

[Commodore]

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. It's very construction violates it's ability to be "moral" as defined by people like Commodore above.

Capitalism is the ideal system to go from nothing to something, the only system in fact. In what capitalist system have the poor gotten poorer?

Either way it's irrelevant, as the morality of capitalism has nothing to do with the outcomes it produces (even though I would call them subjectively good outcomes). It's moral because it upholds the values that a man is entitled to his existence, to his free will, to the fruits of his labor.

[一方通行]

Capitalism is the ideal system to go from nothing to something

this would be hilarious if it wasn't so horrifically tragic.

In what capitalist system have the poor gotten poorer?

all of them. as a more concrete example: the ex-warsaw pact after capitalism reestablished itself.

Either way it's irrelevant, as the morality of capitalism has nothing to do with the outcomes it produces

what? this statment makes no sense whatsoever. of course the outcomes it produces are relevant. that is the most relevant thing about it.

It's moral because it upholds the values that a man is entitled to his existence, to his free will, to the fruits of his labor.

it doesn't though. you are entitled to your existence only insofar as you are able to afford the necessities of life. you are only entitled to the portion of the fruits of your labor that the people who pay your wage decide to toss you. your are free to act only insofar as your accumulated wealth and the police state attendant to capitalism allow you to be.

[The White Wolf]

Capitalism is the ideal system to go from nothing to something, the only system in fact. In what capitalist system have the poor gotten poorer?

Either way it's irrelevant, as the morality of capitalism has nothing to do with the outcomes it produces (even though I would call them subjectively good outcomes). It's moral because it upholds the values that a man is entitled to his existence, to his free will, to the fruits of his labor.

Yes, but it also states that man has the right to economically extort those who are not as fortunate as him, for instance child labor, un-safe working conditions, unsafe food. All needed government regulations to quash the free market for those products.

[stupidguy]

. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. It's very construction violates it's ability to be "moral" as defined by people like Commodore above.

That is false.

My brother's friend's father grew up jack poor but worked way hard and now owns a manison with an indoor swimming pool, an indoor baskeetball court, and a tennis court. He became a neurosurgeon and was the son of an umemployed alcoholic.

This girl my grandma taught in high school came from a rich family. She got into the bohemian lifestyle and nw waits tables up in new jersey.

The rich don't get richer. The meritorious get rich. People who work hard make it easier for their children to work hard.

[Ocean of Notions]

That is false.

My brother's friend's father grew up jack poor but worked way hard and now owns a manison with an indoor swimming pool, an indoor baskeetball court, and a tennis court. He became a neurosurgeon and was the son of an umemployed alcoholic.

This girl my grandma taught in high school came from a rich family. She got into the bohemian lifestyle and nw waits tables up in new jersey.

The rich don't get richer. The meritorious get rich. People who work hard make it easier for their children to work hard.

Right. Because your anecdotes totally prove that the system works and there are no poor who remain poor within a capitalist society.

[The White Wolf]

That is false.

My brother's friend's father grew up jack poor but worked way hard and now owns a manison with an indoor swimming pool, an indoor baskeetball court, and a tennis court. He became a neurosurgeon and was the son of an umemployed alcoholic.

This girl my grandma taught in high school came from a rich family. She got into the bohemian lifestyle and nw waits tables up in new jersey.

The rich don't get richer. The meritorious get rich. People who work hard make it easier for their children to work hard.

Yes and Isaac Asimov taught himself how to read at the age of 4 indicating that everyone else who doesn't do that is just lazy bums. :rolleyes: You ignore those who strike it lucky with the genetic lottery. Those who strike it lucky with the family lottery and have parents involved in their lives making it much easier for them. Those strike it lucky with the educational lottery and go to good schools. Sure there are a few EXCEPTIONAL people who can jump ahead, but those people are just that exceptional.

It is not just merit that is rewarded, it is luck. And it is far more luck than we give it credit for.

[Stalker]

Okay, in the "Hulu's charging for content" thread in Entertainment I made the comment that Capitalism is amoral as it makes no claims regarding its morality or immorality. Stego responded that Capitalism was "immoral."

Accepting that assertion as true for the sake of discussion what economic system is "moral"? Not more moral than Capitalism but simply "moral" by definition.

I don't think the difficulty is the economic system,, rather, even if we assume "Moral" makes sense, I'm pretty sure we'll fail to agree what that moral is. Economic views tend to follow once you've settled on a moral system, and is really just a technical issue. One that can be pretty interesting (at least to me) but discussions about means often become rather confused when we assume different ends.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Yes and Isaac Asimov taught himself how to read at the age of 4 indicating that everyone else who doesn't do that is just lazy bums. :rolleyes: You ignore those who strike it lucky with the genetic lottery. Those who strike it lucky with the family lottery and have parents involved in their lives making it much easier for them. Those strike it lucky with the educational lottery and go to good schools. Sure there are a few EXCEPTIONAL people who can jump ahead, but those people are just that exceptional.

It is not just merit that is rewarded, it is luck. And it is far more luck than we give it credit for.

Isn't that just Natural Selection?

Granted, you can hardly term that moral (amoral at best).

[TerraPrime]

Isn't that just Natural Selection?

No.

Social Darwinism =! evolutionary theory.

[The Real Will]

That is false.

My brother's friend's father grew up jack poor but worked way hard and now owns a manison with an indoor swimming pool, an indoor baskeetball court, and a tennis court. He became a neurosurgeon and was the son of an umemployed alcoholic.

This girl my grandma taught in high school came from a rich family. She got into the bohemian lifestyle and nw waits tables up in new jersey.

The rich don't get richer. The meritorious get rich. People who work hard make it easier for their children to work hard.

I think you need read up on sample sizes and statistical anomalies. I suspect that Shryke probably mean that on average the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That, if you want to be rich, the best thing you can do is get richer (or apparently more meritorious) parents. Which, as far as I know, statistically, is true. Your acquaintances make for an interesting contrast, but they don't represent the norm.

Not that I think all the pro-capitalists hold this POV but I think this is another moral problem that emerges from capitalist philosophy: If you believe that wealth is solely based on merit then you're going to regard all poor people as lacking. The only reason they're poor is because of a defect in their character.

Now, yes I know that isn't part of the core moral philosophy of capitalism, and that it's simply an emergent trait (both the wealth gap and the demeaning of the poor), but capitalism has to take responsibility for its outcomes as well as lauding its fine philosophical basis. I could argue the unblemished virtues of communism the same way Commodore laid out capitalism. I could claim (as some have already) that communism is moral because it's the only system that is based on equality and equality is a fabulous virtue. It doesn't matter that communism ends up screwing over equality in much that same way that capitalism screws over freedom, because it's heart is in the right place.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

No.

Social Darwinism =! evolutionary theory.

Why not? In general, the genetically strong prosper.

[TerraPrime]

Why not? In general, the genetically strong prosper.

Because the genetic heritability of socially-affected behavior patterns is zero.

If someone becomes rich because s/he has a knack of spotting good investment opportunities, how much of that is caused by some genetic determinant? Very little. The chance of that person passing that same trait to his/her progenies is near zero. Therefore, it is not subject to evolutionary pressure, which means natural selection cannot act on it.

Evolutionarily speaking, a low-income person who produces 5 offsprings is more successful than Bill Gates (presuming that Gates does not have more than 5 children in his life time), because more of the next generation individuals will carry that low-income person's genetic material than they will carry Bill Gates'. So, sir, you too, can be more evolutionarily successful than Bill Gates.

[The Real Will]

Why not? In general, the genetically strong prosper.

I'm far from an expert on this, but I don't believe that the age at which you begin reading has a lot to do with a persons evolutionary success (nor does their income for that matter). "Fittest" in the Darwinian sense is really only talking about your ability to have children, and for your children to have children. Any genetic trait that increases the odds of you having kids and your kids surviving makes you fitter. I'm not sure either literacy or wealth are a genetic traits, but as far as I'm aware the rich tend to have fewer children than the poor and so if wealth were a genetic trait it might even be a negative one.

If you want to make Darwinian fitness the benchmark by which to judge people, that woman with 16 kids who had octuplets recently is probably winning. Provided a reasonable proportion of her kids survive and have children of their own. :P