Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been ruminating about this one for a olong time, and have finally distilled it down to this:
Morality is contingent on human beings behaving in a decent and civilized manner. Morality exists or prevails purely on the basis of what people choose to do in their own hearts and minds, irrespective of the nature or character of the social structures within which they live. Accordingly, whether or not a social or economic or governmental system is capitalist or anything else, has no bearing on the the component individuals behaving in a moral way.
Morality is something that people do as individuals, and they will do what they will do, regardless of what the structure of their society tries to impose on them.
Both posters do not understand what "moral" and "immoral" mean. When you say that "the use of force... is immoral" or "socialism is the only..." by what moral code? There are moral codes where the use of force is very moral. Capitalism is as moral as any other ideology by capitalistic/ individualistic codes. These posters mean that X is immoral when judged by their personal moral standards, which are totally and absolutely subjective.
It is basically the Natural law as Cicero spelled out. Forcing people to do something when they are not hurting others is not moral.
First of all, nobody should take any Michael Moore film as anything more than it is: Bad comedy.
That said, ANY economic form/structure has the potential for both incredible good and incredible evil. Capitalism can be very moral, or extremely immoral - just like any other system.
It is not really the system that is has potential for evil, but people.
Capitalism is the only system every to embody sufficient movitations and dismotivations to manage to get people to creat wealth on any significant basis.
Other other systems flocus on divying up a pie, as if it fell from the sky. They pay no attention to creating it, and hence, fail.
Capitalism, OTOH, creates real pie, and lets merit determine is distribution.
Capitalism is the only system every to embody sufficient movitations and dismotivations to manage to get people to creat wealth on any significant basis.
Is it your view, then, that creation of wealth is absolutely and invariably moral, to the exclusion of any other human activity?
Was not slavery a system whose purpose was to create wealth, and did it not in fact create wealth?
Is morality the intent to create wealth, or only the successful accomplishment of the creation of wealth?
First of all, nobody should take any Michael Moore film as anything more than it is: Bad comedy.
That said, ANY economic form/structure has the potential for both incredible good and incredible evil. Capitalism can be very moral, or extremely immoral - just like any other system.
Okay, I know that Michael Moore is a controversial figure and you either love him or hate him. That being said, I don't think he should be dismissed as nothing but a producer of bad comedy. The fact is, whether you agree with him or not, he is on to something. Does he spin what he presents in his films? Sure. But if you look past the hyperbole, there is always a kernel of truth and in the case of Moore's films, perhaps kernel of truth is an understatement.
Here is why I think Moore needs to be taken seriously: First, the information that Moore presents in his films is provable with a bit of research. Prior to seeing "Capitalism..." I had never heard of "dead peasant" insurance policies that corporations take out on their employees without their knowledge. I Googled "dead peasant" insurance policies and sure enough, there were over six million results. Second, Moore mentions names. Now come on, if the things he says about, say, Hank Paulson were not true, don't you think Moore would be facing major lawsuits for libel and defamation of character? Don't you think that the people who's heinous acts he exposes would have immediately held a press conference to deny these "allegations" by Moore? No such press conferences were held.
In my opinion, many people who don't like what Michael Moore presents in his films have probably fallen victim to the very thing he describes in his latest film. People believe that one day they will be able to join the ranks of the super wealthy. Perhaps too it is a misguided sense of patriotism that causes many to malign Moore although to many he represents the epitome of patriotism.
Now to answer the OP's question, no I do not think the type of capitalism that is in place in the United States today can coexist with morality, as the system is completely morally bankrupt. In fact I don't even believe that the economic system we have is capitalism, certainly not as conceived of by Adam Smith. It is more like fascism.
Last edited by Consent Withdrawn; 03-22-2010 at 11:05 AM..
We have a form of "Mature Capitalism" that is essentially feudal in nature. It is not a market but a complex system designed to protect the wealthy from risk while allowing the speculating gamblers to control and lose the money of the masses. It is working very well for both the extremely wealthy and the gamblers that folded soon enough to escape with their winnings. This system is self destructive because it eventually fails to have any productive activity in the system and without the production of real wealth the system collapses.
The economics of the system after the collapse can get very messy unless a real equity market free of oligopolistic distortions can be reestablished. Frequently the government will emerge as the last chance owner of the natural monopolies, such as utilities, that were the protected investments that were the first to be looted by the previous generation of speculators. This is not a bad thing because the capital invested should never be free of risk so the owners will always pay attention to what their wealth managers are doing.
Capitalism can be operated in a moral manner so long as the market stays free with open access and the gamblers and monopolists are excluded by regulation.
Capitalism can be a very moral system. This is an old question and you'll find a lot of work which points to what you're asking. Our current system has problems, but there are still many US based businesses you never hear about which make a positive difference for many people.
There is also a lot of mis-information. You need to do the research yourself, but I can say we have fought for hundreds of years now on nearly every inch of Earth for it. We didn't do so because we weren't sure about it.
Posted by jetgraphics:
"Capitalism, the private ownership of the tools of production..."
For many capitalists, workers are the privately owned tools to be used as needed, until worn out, and then simply discarded.
I think it's absurd for any capitalists to be spouting off about morals.
That is your opinion. That is not my capitalism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
