Capitalism as a moral system

[dawnmathieson]

For example the NHS was originally started by the Church

I take it you mean free health care dispensed on a charitable basis and not actually the UK's National Health Service?

Both really. I was lucky enough to study Public Policy which is a subject concerned with how and why laws are made. Free public health care in the UK was originally started by the church under Christian morals to help the unfortunate and was very slowly expanded over a considerable time period into the extensive public health system we have now. The NHS as we know it now does not bear any resemblance to the public health services provided by the church but the NHS was originally started by the church x

[John]

For example the NHS was originally started by the Church

I take it you mean free health care dispensed on a charitable basis and not actually the UK's National Health Service?

Both really. I was lucky enough to study Public Policy which is a subject concerned with how and why laws are made. Free public health care in the UK was originally started by the church under Christian morals to help the unfortunate and was very slowly expanded over a considerable time period into the extensive public health system we have now. The NHS as we know it now does not bear any resemblance to the public health services provided by the church but the NHS was originally started by the church x

The NHS is a specific entity though so it's not accurate to say that it was started by the church (I take it you means churches?) although I would agree that religious groups ran charities that offered medical treatment. The NHS was essentially the nationalisation of the health sector by the post-war Labour government and there's a huge difference between a health service run as a charity and one funded by central taxation where medical treatment is delivered on the basis of need on a presumption of entitlement.

I know you're not claiming that the NHS as we understand it today is the same service you say the religious charities provided but I think you need to be careful not to use terms like "NHS" and "free public health care" interchangeably as one refers to an institution and the other to a policy objective. If you had to answer an exam question that asked "Who founded the NHS?" you wouldn't answer it by saying the church did, even if you were to make a claim about it's influence on the policy issues that lead to it being founded.

[dawnmathieson]

I did answer an essay question on the NHS by saying it was started by the Church (yes lol the institution not like one church. why do you think the symbol is a cross?) but its a lot more complicated than that i was trying to simplify it because its a little off topic. Free public health care is interchangeable unless you are talking about NHS in a modern sense. it wasnt the case that one day there was no health care and the next the government took care of everything. The NHS as we know it now coming into esistence was a very slow process which happened over the past 200 years.

Anyways enough about public policy the main point is that capitalism > urbanisation > disease from over crowding > Government forced to help with NHS x

[John]

I did answer an essay question on the NHS by saying it was started by the Church (yes lol the institution not like one church. why do you think the symbol is a cross?) but its a lot more complicated than that i was trying to simplify it because its a little off topic. Free public health care is interchangeable unless you are talking about NHS in a modern sense. it wasnt the case that one day there was no health care and the next the government took care of everything. The NHS as we know it now coming into esistence was a very slow process which happened over the past 200 years.

If I refer to the NHS I always specifically mean the National Health Service and I think it's safer not to use the term interchangeably. However, no big deal once things are explained.

Anyways enough about public policy the main point is that capitalism > urbanisation > disease from over crowding > Government forced to help with NHS x

There's a potentially interesting discussion to be had here about whether institutions such as the NHS or welfare states in particular should be viewed as victories of the left or concessions from capitalists to prevent the populace veering towards revolution. I know people, much further to left that I am, who disdain social democracy but regard the welfare state as a victory. An absurd and naive contradiction in my view.

[dawnmathieson]

I would say that nothing is ever as distinct as people would like and more of a long journey. Yes i find the capitalist 'consessions' (so to speak) a very interesting subject due to my interest in both Philosophy and Public Policy. Politically i sway wildly from between the left and the right so im bizarre to talk politics with x

[spike]

In his article "Capitalism & Human Values" in Philosophy Now magazine 83 Frank S. Robinson writes:

Capitalism is often portrayed as sacrificing some in order to benefit others, in a cold-hearted utilitarian calculus. No economic system will ever work to everyone’s benefit. But capitalism at least gives most people the opportunity to flourish, and the resultant society is the richest attainable, even for the losers.

The Left talks about the ‘contradictions of capitalism’, but the only contradiction is that individual striving for advantage serves the common good. It’s anti-capitalism that’s contradictory – the idea of achieving justice by taking away what people have earned. And that this also nurtures poverty rather than solving it.

Capitalism is not perfect. No economic system ever can be, and the quest for utopia has produced rivers of blood and tears. But if we accept human imperfection, as we must, a free market economy is as good as it gets.


Capitalist! It's as good as it gets. Robinson is absolutely right.

[dawnmathieson]

In his article "Capitalism & Human Values" in Philosophy Now magazine 83 Frank S. Robinson writes:

Capitalism is often portrayed as sacrificing some in order to benefit others, in a cold-hearted utilitarian calculus. No economic system will ever work to everyone’s benefit. But capitalism at least gives most people the opportunity to flourish, and the resultant society is the richest attainable, even for the losers.

The Left talks about the ‘contradictions of capitalism’, but the only contradiction is that individual striving for advantage serves the common good. It’s anti-capitalism that’s contradictory – the idea of achieving justice by taking away what people have earned. And that this also nurtures poverty rather than solving it.

Capitalism is not perfect. No economic system ever can be, and the quest for utopia has produced rivers of blood and tears. But if we accept human imperfection, as we must, a free market economy is as good as it gets.


Capitalist! It's as good as it gets. Robinson is absolutely right.

Yes this is all well and good for economics and political theory but again Utilitarianism and capitalism are not the same thing.

Lets take a famous moral dilemma and apply with kantian, utilitarian and your supposed capitalist ethical theory. You see an innocent man running from a murderer and you see him hide. The murderer asks you where the innocent man is hiding. What should you do?

Kantian ethics would probably advise you to tell the truth as the other mans actions are not your responsibility but your own responsibility to never lie is yours alone.

Utilitarian ethics would say do not tell the murderer the truth as in this occasion lying will increase the innocent mans happiness.

Capitalist ethics would..... ?????? er.... urm.... Find out who did more free market trading?

Ok lets try another. A man gives you a gun and says if you kill this man i will set my other 9 captives free. If you dont I will kill all 10. What should you do?

Kantian ethics would probably advise not killing the man because murder is always immoral, even under these circumstances.

Again utilitarian ethics would advise killing the one man as saving 9 would give more aggregate happiness than all 10 dying.

Capitalist ethics would..... again urgh???? find out if the man owned any large corporations?

Yes it is both an economic and political theory but no it is not a moral system. I see and agree with your point that capitalism does benefit its citizens in a financial way and (as with all ascpects of society) it is interwoven with our moral system. One of the main problems with Capitalism as a moral system is that capitalism requires criminals and poverty. Without examples in society that demonstrate to its citizens life without ambition, capitalism doesnt work as people dont have sufficient drive for successful free market trading to succeed. Capitalism needs inequality. Utilitarianism justifies and explains some inequalities but does not require them. I can see where your confusion is coming from but capitalism and utilitarianism are not the same thing x

[spike]

capitalism and utilitarianism are not the same thing x

I disagree. Utilitarianism is not a system in itself like is suggested here. Utilitarianism is a dialectical idealism in need of dialectical materialism in order to bring it to fruition. It needs a materialistic server. Capitalism is its materialistic server and deliver boy.

Everybody who has argued here against capitalism hasn't offered an alternative to free market capitalism. That is because there isn't one, one that is either practical or realistic. Capitalism is on the whole a utilitarian system, in that it is mutually beneficial for the greatest number of people possible.

I just saw a picture of Havana Cuba. I couldn't believe how derelict and squalidly the buildings looked, on mass. In free market capitalistic countries you don't see such dereliction. That is because in capitalistic countries there is a level of income and incentive to look after one's own property. But, then, people in Cuba can't own property or have the income to do so, so why bother looking after it if it isn't yours and the State can take it away from you at any given moment.

In Cuba there is truly an idealistic utilitarianism. It is a utilitarian system in which everybody suffers the same poverty, except the privileged and those in power. But even in Cuba they have realized the old ways of state support can't continue. So the welfare state in Cuba is beginning to be dismantled and free market principles are starting to emerge in order to keep the country afloat.

[Arising_uk]

That may be but not everything is measured by property. As such Cuba has had a health and education system that measured under utilitarian standards has exceeded many capitalist countries in many areas in its provision for its citizens. Check out its neighbours in this respect.

Still, from what you say it sounds like this is about to change and they can look forward to greater inequality in health and education.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.
Notvacka I think you are DEAD NUTS ON.


I could not improve upon your response in the least. Well written Notvacka.

Allow me to quote you:

I think the title of this topic contradicts itself. There simply is no way to view capitalism as a moral system. That does not mean that capitalism is necessarily bad, by the way, only that it's not a moral system. And it was never intended to be one.

Capitalism provides incentive for investment and promotes effective use of resources. It's a good economic engine. But it's a bad steering wheel. Capitalism needs to be tempered by moral values and regulated for the common good.

I could only add, thank the god that exists in all of us for Organized Labor!


Organized Labor tempers capitalism.

Free, independent, legally recognized, Organized Labor agreements can only exist in a Democracy.

Organized Labor thrives in a Liberal Democracy.

Capitalism can and does exist ANYWHERE. The recent marriage of capitalism & Communism is visible in the Republic of China.

China is one of the five recognized Communist countries that still exist on our planet.

Capitalism cares not about the rights of individuals or any other environmentally moral issues.


My country, America, HATES Communism. We have fought world wars against it and lost some of our brightest and bravest men & women.


Organized Labor & America LOVES individual freedom. Therein lies morality. Capitalism was just a drive-by.



Ya probably should have thought this one over Ms. Spike. Perhaps you could reword your original spit?
Again, props to you Notvacka.




.................................................






Thank you Spike for the opportunity to spout! That felt GREAT!



…

[dawnmathieson]

As I said, our morals are clearly woven through all Institutions in society but that is not the same thing as our institutions being moral systems. The arguments you are providing only demonstrate the strength of capitalism as an economic system.

Ok here is another example.
Country A trades with Country B. Country C refuses to trade with country A or B. Country B wants to destroy country C by dropping a megaton bomb. You know this bomb will kill everyone in country C including all civilians. Country B asks you to make the bomb and they will pay you for it in luxury goods. Do you make the bomb? x

[converge]

Everybody who has argued here against capitalism hasn't offered an alternative to free market capitalism.

Um, I offered you like fifteen different alternatives and you ignored every single one. Eventually you said that everything is actually part of capitalism, because everything in the entire world, now including socialism AND communism AND Marxism AND every single governmental and economic system on the entire planet is ALL "capitalism" according to you. If your delusions tell you that everything from communism to peanut butter to a bowl of kittens is all capitalism, then obviously you won't be able to process the idea that an alternative exists.

I just saw a picture of Havana Cuba.

I'm not sure if you're saying that you think Havana is (finally) not part of "capitalism". Since you think socialism and communism are both capitalism, I'm not sure how to approach the idea that Havana might not be capitalism. What is it that makes it different than other communist and socialist places that you consider capitalist?

[John]

I just saw a picture of Havana Cuba. I couldn't believe how derelict and squalidly the buildings looked, on mass. In free market capitalistic countries you don't see such dereliction. That is because in capitalistic countries there is a level of income and incentive to look after one's own property.

I hear Detroit is lovely this time of year (and I don't mean the faked image prevalent on the web).

There are plenty of capitalist countries in the developed and developing world that have slums and they can't all claim an economic embargo by the worlds biggest economy as an excuse.

[spike]

I just came across a thought provoking, torrid article: "You Might be a Marxist If ... You Believe God Hates Capitalism", which lampoons capitalism as a Gold Rule trasher and Marxism as a Golden Rule savior: http://politicalaffairs.net/you-might-b ... ntStart=20

I would say, let's count the ways that people under the name of Marxism have ignored and trashed the "Golden Rule". Think of labor camps and gulags, and how people under it were persecuted for their religion, and the property confiscated.

The forsaking of the Gold Rule has not been strictly the domain of any one sociopolitical/socioeconomic movement. It's forsaking is chiefly in the realm of humankind itself no matter what system it lives under. So I think if you compare one on one, you will find that capitalism, for all its faults, has done more to uphold the idea of the Gold Rule than Marxism, or any other governing system.

Capitalism has maintained the principle and contained the erosion of the Golden Rule better than any other governing system, hence its ascendency. Capitalism has not done this alone. It's done in conjunction and combination with its partner democracy, something that got very lost under all the schools of Marxism.

Overall, capitalism has helped construct and uphold moral values better than any Marxism ever did.

[Notvacka]

Spike, the way you use the word "capitalism" it becomes a catch phrase for almost anything. I don't think you have much grasp of the concept, and since there is no consensus on a precise definition of the word "capitalism" anyway, I suggest that you try to state your case without using that word at all. This is a constructive suggestion, since such limitations force you to actually think about what you want to say before you blurt it out.

And Bill, thanks for your kind words. I pretty much agree that organized labour is our best hope.