Philosophy Now Forum

My argument is that capitalism is the best teacher of moral values and how we ought to conduct ourselves. Some might find this weird and despicable because they view capitalism as a destroyer of morality.

I argue, though, to be morally inclined one has to be engaged and participate with others in common practices. No other system engages more people in common practices than capitalism. It is from such an engagement that we develop the moral codes and laws that ultimately benefit and protect all (utilitarianism). Adam Smith, the supposed founder of capitalism, thought as much in his treatise The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Where does capitalism teach a utilitarian approach?

I don't think capitalism teaches morals. Capitalism + competition = best way of keeping the bastard's honest. That's the chief reason I like it.

spike wrote: No other system engages more people in common practices than capitalism.

Citation needed.

survival of the fittest in the purest form...

not fit enough? incorporate.

why not elevate the god of money over other gods especially if god is dead?

-Imp

Citation needed.

Perhaps the system of toiletry and its extentions beats capitalism for engaging the most people. But where would the business of toiletry be without capitalism and the variety and methods of toiletry it bestows on us.

spike wrote:

Citation needed.

Perhaps the system of toiletry and its extentions beats capitalism for engaging the most people. But where would the business of toiletry be without capitalism and the variety and methods of toiletry it bestows on us.

"Anarchy sounds good to me then someone asks 'Who'd fix the sewers?'" - Jello Biafra

-Imp

Quite a lot of things spring to mind before "capitalism" when I think of "stuff that lots of people do": Religion, family, civilization, war, sex, music, art, education, science, etc.... Capitalism is just an economic theory that's only been around for the last few centuries, and one that only a small segment of the Earth's population worship in that silly pseudo-religious libertarian way. If your only reason for thinking capitalism would make a good moral system is "lots of people do it" then you seem to be ignoring the thousands of other things that lots of people do.

converge wrote:Quite a lot of things spring to mind before "capitalism" when I think of "stuff that lots of people do": Religion, family, civilization, war, sex, music, art, education, science, etc.... Capitalism is just an economic theory that's only been around for the last few centuries, and one that only a small segment of the Earth's population worship in that silly pseudo-religious libertarian way. If your only reason for thinking capitalism would make a good moral system is "lots of people do it" then you seem to be ignoring the thousands of other things that lots of people do.

In this world of hyper complexity, before one can afford to do anything else, or have the luxury of participating in anything else meaningfully, a sound economy has to be in place. Capitalism best affords a sound economy, as history empirically has shown, so that we can participate and pursue our other interests.

People participate in all those things mentioned above, especially in civilization. All those things mentioned above constitute civilization. Civilization, though, requires maintenance in order that it survives and continues in its endeavors and pursuits of religion, war, sex, music, art, education, science and so on. The free market, capitalistic principle bests marshals the resources — natural and human, needed to maintain what civilization is doing. In order to maintain things so that life continues, things need replacing and replenishing. Again, capitalism does that best.

I am the first to say that its ironic, and perverse, that we have to purse our own self-interest first before we can do good things for others or be moral citizens. But that is the way it is. But in order to be able to pursue one's own self-interest so that we can be outstanding citizens we have to have a systems that will allow us the freedom to cultivate our self-interest. Capitalism, with its free market principles. is that system.

Maintenance is where its at. Without constant maintenance, governing systems, civilizations and our personal being collapse. It is a moral imperative that things be maintained so that civilization survives and continues. Capitalism, of all economics systems, has shown itself best at meeting that moral imperative, also know as the imperative of renewal.

spike wrote: In this world of hyper complexity, before one can afford to do anything else, or have the luxury of participating in anything else meaningfully, a sound economy has to be in place.

Plenty of people did and continue to do plenty of things without having capitalism around. "Economics" didn't even exist as a discipline until relatively recently in history, yet people have been getting along quite fine.

Capitalism best affords a sound economy, as history empirically has shown, so that we can participate and pursue our other interests.

I lolled. I hope you're a troll, but it's so hard to tell on these boards because so many people really do believe such dumb things with such conviction. I'm assuming you haven't turned on a TV or read the news in the last four or five years, so I'll break it to you: the world economy, and especially the U.S. economy, just went to hell. It's broken badly, and we were only barely saved from a complete meltdown by the judicious use of "socialism". Tell all the people currently in debt and working three jobs because they got robbed by Wall Street that this is giving them the freedom to pursue other interests. The teabaggers will agree with you, but anyone else will realize you're delusional.

Civilization, though, requires maintenance in order that it survives and continues in its endeavors and pursuits of religion, war, sex, music, art, education, science and so on.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

The free market, capitalistic principle bests marshals the resources — natural and human, needed to maintain what civilization is doing.

Oh, but here's where you lost me. "Maintenance and order" are the antithesis of capitalism. Capitalism abhors the maintenance of a national infrastructure because undermining the support of the other citizens is the key to personal profit, and it thinks that "order" is a barrier to free economy. A true capitalist's ideal situation would be one where the capitalist has all the capital and has no one imposing any order on him, and the rest of the people around him are in disarray and have nothing, so that they have no choice but to work for him and increase his capital.
I'm not sure since you haven't directly said it, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the U.S. is "the best" civilization, but by almost all sociological or ethical interpretations it is not. It has a terrible health rating, low survival rates, relatively poor standard of living, awful education, high crime, high murder rates, etc. The only things it really leads with is the wealth of the military, and the concentration of wealth at the very top. If you think that "best marshaling the resources" means funneling almost all of the resources to a few rich folks at the top and spending the rest on war, then I would agree, but I personally wouldn't call this the "best" use of resources. It really depends on what you want to use the resources for.

In order to maintain things so that life continues, things need replacing and replenishing. Again, capitalism does that best.

"Things" don't need replacing and replenishing in general. That would mean whoever produces the most trash the fastest has the best life. The only things that need replenishing in order for life to thrive are the things that are beneficial to life. Unfortunately, corporatism is widely regarded as the driving force behind destabilization of the environment and the lowering of health standards.

I am the first to say that its ironic, and perverse, that we have to purse our own self-interest first before we can do good things for others or be moral citizens. But that is the way it is.

Let me guess... you are an upper-middle class white male kid from a conservative and slightly overbearing family who just went to college and discovered Ayn Rand. Rich kids love Rand, because all of her writing basically says that being a selfish arrogant douchebag and treating others like crap is a virtue, and that if you're rich, it surely wasn't because your parents are paying your way; you must have somehow earned it through your own innate awesomeness. Don't worry though. Ayn Rand Assholism (ARA) is a common disease, but it can be cured. There are resources available on the internet to help.

But in order to be able to pursue one's own self-interest so that we can be outstanding citizens we have to have a systems that will allow us the freedom to cultivate our self-interest. Capitalism, with its free market principles. is that system.

Yeah, or, you know, almost any other system ever that anybody could make up. Capitalism has little to do with freedom. You can live in a socially repressed but economically free society. (In fact, that's exactly what conservatives want.) A society where the authority demands strict adherence to tradition, religion, law, sexual orientation, etc. But it still lets the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Or you can live in a society where there is very little authority on personal and individual freedoms, which puts strict regulations on corporations. Anarchy springs to mind. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that a corporate fascist state gives you more "freedom to cultivate self-interest" than... you know... just being able to do whatever the hell you want.

Maintenance is where its at. Without constant maintenance, governing systems, civilizations and our personal being collapse.

It's funny you keep saying that because "maintenance" is usually handled by the social programs in almost every nation in the world. If we let "the free market" maintain our roads and highways, we would be screwed.

It is a moral imperative that things be maintained so that civilization survives and continues. Capitalism, of all economics systems, has shown itself best at meeting that moral imperative, also know as the imperative of renewal.

Do you actually know anything about any other economic systems? Can you give some examples of how, exactly capitalism has shown an ability to "maintain renewal" more than any other system?

converge,

Your blowback — your counterpoints, is riddled with sarcasm. It is hard to compete or be rational with sarcasm or to counter it. Thus, I have extricate myself from any further debate with you.

And if your so anti capitalism at least you could offer an alternative, which there is non.

spike wrote:converge,

Your blowback — your counterpoints, is riddled with sarcasm. It is hard to compete or be rational with sarcasm or to counter it. Thus, I have extricate myself from any further debate with you.

And if your so anti capitalism at least you could offer an alternative, which there is non.

I offered you a bunch in my first post: religion, education, civilization, etc. Or you could go read one of thousands of philosophy articles about morality; there are as many systems of morality as there are people. If you honestly can't think of anything other than Rand-style capitalism as a basis for morality, well... I guess I just hope they have strict gun laws in your state.

Personally, I don't think there is one true moral system to rule them all. I base my own morals on a special blend of utilitarianism and whatever I feel like at the time.

From an article in Philosophy Now by Frank S. Robinson entitled Capitalism & Human Values.

"First, free market capitalism has not failed. We have suffered from big mistakes and abuses in financial and credit institutions. The banks, investment houses, trading firms, and mortgage outfits perform a function within the larger system, facilitating flows of money. That’s analogous to your car’s carburetor: it’s needed to make the engine run, but it’s not the engine. The economy’s engine, the true heart of capitalism, is not Wall Street or the City: it’s the production of goods and services, rightly called ‘the real economy’."

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.