Does Capitlism, by its economic nature, help to encourage a moral society?

[freesoulhope]

Obviously I spliced your quote…sorry.

Firstly, we need to understand that not everyone is equal, and therefore, not everyone can be treated equally. It is a fallacy that all humans have equal traits…obviously we don’t. I would not expect the janitor at a hospital to be able to perform complicated brain surgery, nor would I expect them to get paid the same.

.

I don’t agree with this part. Your philosophy is only correct if people are born brain surgeons.

Everybody has the same ability (unless they have a brain-disorder) to learn the skill or trade, (if they want to) and become a brain surgeon; Black, white, working class or otherwise. Theres no such thing as a “trait” as if people are born with different levels of intelligents. If this is so, it is even more of an injustice to exploit such people, since they have no power over their ability to learn; one cannot say they should be paid less.

Obviously I spliced your quote…sorry.

Also, our system, while not perfect, allows for personal responsibility. I am a teacher (hence the screen name), and I see the lack of personal responsibility inherent in our schools. It is a fact that highschool drop outs earn nearly 65% of what high school graduates earn (GED earners generally earn 75% of what a high school diploma would get you). Why do people drop out? Because they don’t want to do the work to recieve a diploma (which is what I have seen nearly every year I have taught). Should they be rewarded for poor decisions, simply for ‘fairness’? There are natural and economic consequences for our decisions and actions. Most of the kids who drop out come from broken families, which have broken the natural morality that Paul VI speaks of in Humanae Vitae

.

I probably made no sense what ever…I am being pressed for time.

The issue here is that the “free market” doesn’t have a safety
Net; a law enforcement that provides and protects people who cannot compete in the market; and why should it; Life is a competition for survival! That’s Capitalism. Why is it like this? Corporation and profit dictates law, not Government. Why is it okay for them to dictate law based on what is profitable, but we cannot have a law that governs the market for the benefit of all? Nobody who is honest or clearly understands, would argue in favour of the abuser, unless abusers themselves.

Nobody that is reasonable would say that you shouldn’t be rich if you work for it! But most corporations in this society become rich by the exploitation of others; and these are the people that truly govern the system. Its all competition, that’s why everything is becoming privatised, everything is a business; it isn’t about people. Human life.

I also believe that you should be paid for the service you provide. However it should be “law” that, what ever business that employs you, they should pay you a liveable and dignified wage.

Why doesn’t this happen? It’s not just the human condition; it’s the way the market is set up. The government will never pass such a law because the people that fund the government and their wars, are the very same people who are the exploiters of nations.

Not everybody can become a brain surgeon, simply because to survive in this world, you have to compete with other brain surgeons; it has nothing to do with the human ability to “achieve". If everybody had high trade skills, and, by right of their ability to perform, wanted a high paid job, this would present a problem for the market, since nobody of that calibre is going to accept a meagre, barely liveable wage, just because he is forced by the competition of the market place to work in a low skilled job. In fact such a person would be in an up roar and would call it immoral; Survival of the fittest mentality. The pay system is wrong.

 

[freesoulhope]

Because they don’t want to do the work to recieve a diploma (which is what I have seen nearly every year I have taught). Should they be rewarded for poor decisions, simply for ‘fairness’? There are natural and economic consequences for our decisions and actions.

This is just a black and white argument. Blame the victim.

Kids dropping out of school is to do with there lack of understanding life; there lack of a value system in a system that doesn’t value them as people; rather, people to exploit for profit. People are responsible for there actions, however this doesn’t justify the system; responsibility is a poor argument.

It is also to do with other things that are influenced by a survival of the fittest economic system. Such a system will encourage ( It is not the “prime” cause) people to be inconsiderate, uncompassionate; selfish, ignorant, and evil if one is forced to compete with somebody else for a dignified lifestyle, or just to stay alive in general. In fact, I believe capitalism is the image of human sin, a representation of humanities unwillingness to unite in love and righteousness. I don’t believe that there are poor people just because people make it like this; there are poor people because there has to be, in order for somebody else to rich, and for the elite to maintain control; the system is regulated as such to bring these circumstances in to order. It’s not a system designed by God to teach the naughty school boy that he should have paid attention in class.

I’m going to start a thread labelled; does Capitalism encourage a moral Society; or does it encourage a sinful one?

I’m quite prepared to accept correction. But I want to see a good counter argument!

 

[freesoulhope]

hello?

 

[freesoulhope]

Just to be clear, i am not agains’t the market place per say; i just think that it is immoral that it should be unregulated and left in the hands of those who would pay crumbs instead of what people truly deserve as contributors to production and service. Human life and human dignity is more valuble.

 

[mchale]

Capitalism, or any other materialistic system of orginizing our world by its very nature will not encourage moral behavior, and in fact, will often encourage immoral behavior.

There are some very undeniable goods that have come from capitalism, but also some very severe negatives. Amongst the negatives is the encouragement of the idea that the purpose of life is procurement of wealth and material goods. Additional negatives are the rationalizations that occur to justify the doing of harm to others (i.e., it is good for the whole, therefore the harm I do to the individual or the small group is justified).

Unfortunately, except for some small, voluntary associations, no group has ever managed to organize itself along non-material lines. Further, amongst martialistic philosophies, Capitalism, at least regulated Capitalism, appears to be the least harmful of human dignity. Thus, while I think we should continue to look for more just, moral and humane ways of orgainizing our society and the distribution of wealth, I think we need to work within the framework of Captialism to keep it as just as possible until such time as we find a more viable replacement for it.

I will say this though, I doubt that any secular, materialistic system is ever going to be truely just.

–
Bill

 

[freesoulhope]

I will say this though, I doubt that any secular, materialistic system is ever going to be truely just.

–
Bill

What do you mean? You doubt that “human beings” will stay faithfull to a positive system; or do you doubt that there is any such thing?

 

[freesoulhope]

Capitalism, appears to be the least harmful of human dignity.​

Bill

You feel that, a survival of the fittest system, like capitilism, is the most moral and the least harmful to the dignity of human beings?

 

[mchale]

What do you mean? You doubt that “human beings” will stay faithfull to a positive system; or do you doubt that there is any such thing?

I meant what I said, materialistic systems by their very nature tend to be both corrupt and corrupting. They argue that human happiness is achieved through matieralistic, human means. Both communism and capitalism argue that the key to human happiness lies in the material world, the only difference is that communisim believes that this happiness is brought about by equally sharing material goods, while capitalism argues that everyone will have more if a few are allowed to have much more.

You feel that, a survival of the fittest system, like capitilism, is the most moral and the least harmful to the dignity of human beings?

Only if you take what I said out of context. Specifically my judgement is based on a regulated capitalist system, and further my judgement is based only upon a comparison of existing materialistic systems. If you compare capitialism with its two great competitors of the 20th century, Facism and Communisim, it is easy to see that evils of the latter two far outweigh the evils of the former. Facism and Comunism both proceed from the assumption that the individual and his achievement is something to be viewed with suspicion. Capitialism, for all of its failures, at the very least celebrates the individual.

Ultimately though, there are enormous forces in the survival of the fittest philosophy of Capitalism that ultimately undermine it as being a fundamentally just system. As a result, my earlier statement needs to be taken as it being the least of a selection of evils.

If we want to create a just society, then we need to build society on a basis that rejects the material as the source of happiness. Whether this will ever happen before the end of the world is of course doubtful.

–
Bill

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Unfortunately, except for some small, voluntary associations, no group has ever managed to organize itself along non-material lines. Further, amongst martialistic philosophies, Capitalism, at least regulated Capitalism, appears to be the least harmful of human dignity.

That’s not really true.
For instance universities don’t run with money as their chief dynamic. They need money to carry out their operations, of course, but they very rarely return profits to shareholders. Nor do the academic staff try to obtain the best paid positions, but those with the most status. “I know he invented fire and the wheel, but what has he done since?” is the tone of Senior Common Room conversation. Similarly, places are not allocated by auction, but to the cleverest applicants.

That is also true of armies. Men desire glory more than they desire riches.
It is also largely true of school education, though maybe less so than with universities, since schools don’t undertake major activities unrelated to their pupils’ welfare.

If you take successful societies as a whole there is almost always a commercial sector, and it is often quite large. However a significant number of people work outside of it, and not in the special case of givernmental civil administration.

 

[mchale]

That’s not really true.
For instance universities don’t run with money as their chief dynamic. They need money to carry out their operations, of course, but they very rarely return profits to shareholders. Nor do the academic staff try to obtain the best paid positions, but those with the most status. “I know he invented fire and the wheel, but what has he done since?” is the tone of Senior Common Room conversation. Similarly, places are not allocated by auction, but to the cleverest applicants.

I will grant that Universities do not operate along the line of a Capitalist corporation, but I would definitely argue that modern Universities are driven by materialistic issues. Professors are assessed based on their ability to attract grants (i.e. money) and in some cases, produce patents. Certainly the fact that tuition increases at most universities has far outstripped inflation for the last 20 years certainly argues that money is rather important to them. While individuals might be attracted to the academic setting for reasons that are not strictly materialistic, I would say that the Universities themselves organized along materialistic lines.

That is also true of armies. Men desire glory more than they desire riches.

Armies are never groups in and of themselves, they always operate in the context of a larger society. An army exists to eithier protect a society or to extend the control of that society. Further, warfare has always been driven at least as much by material concerns as by concerns of glory.

It is also largely true of school education, though maybe less so than with universities, since schools don’t undertake major activities unrelated to their pupils’ welfare.

Schools do not exist in a vacum. They are not are not organized as a self sustaining group, but rather to serve the society in which they function. What is the biggest concern about education standards in America? That our children will not be able to compete on the world market.

If you take successful societies as a whole there is almost always a commercial sector, and it is often quite large. However a significant number of people work outside of it, and not in the special case of givernmental civil administration.

Yes every society does need a non-commercial sector, but that doesn’t mean that organizing principal of the society is not itself materialistic. At the very least, most socieities are built around the idea of receiving something in return for service. Again, very few groups (for example religious communities) are organized around the concept of giving without expectation of reward (at least in this life).

–
Bill

 

[Jennifer123]

What do you mean? You doubt that “human beings” will stay faithfull to a positive system; or do you doubt that there is any such thing?

Human beings are tainted with original sin, our concupiscence will always drive inequality. These effects can be mitigated the more society is balanced by moral good, systems that try to mitigate this without any objective moral standard are already bankrupt.
Capitalism isn’t perfect since it is of this world, but it does allow individuals to work towards the greater good if they so choose. :twocents:

 

[lak611]

Doesn’t this belong in Moral Theology or Social Justice? Mods, maybe it needs to be moved?

 

[August]

Capitalism is the most effecient and productive economic system. It is moral when practiced by a moral society. In an immoral society, capitalism does cause problems. That being said, socialism functions by assuming that the general population is immoral, but the leadership is moral. Hence, in all systems except capitalism, economic morality is decided by the state. This can have dangerous consequences, as we’ve seen in communist countries.

 

[freesoulhope]

I meant what I said, materialistic systems by their very nature tend to be both corrupt and corrupting. They argue that human happiness is achieved through matieralistic, human means. Both communism and capitalism argue that the key to human happiness lies in the material world, the only difference is that communisim believes that this happiness is brought about by equally sharing material goods, while capitalism argues that everyone will have more if a few are allowed to have much more.

Only if you take what I said out of context. Specifically my judgement is based on a regulated capitalist system, and further my judgement is based only upon a comparison of existing materialistic systems. If you compare capitialism with its two great competitors of the 20th century, Facism and Communisim, it is easy to see that evils of the latter two far outweigh the evils of the former. Facism and Comunism both proceed from the assumption that the individual and his achievement is something to be viewed with suspicion. Capitialism, for all of its failures, at the very least celebrates the individual.

Ultimately though, there are enormous forces in the survival of the fittest philosophy of Capitalism that ultimately undermine it as being a fundamentally just system. As a result, my earlier statement needs to be taken as it being the least of a selection of evils.

If we want to create a just society, then we need to build society on a basis that rejects the material as the source of happiness. Whether this will ever happen before the end of the world is of course doubtful.

–
Bill

I like you. You speak with an open heart that has eyes to see. Glory to God and God bless you.

 

[Ender]

At its most fundamental level, capitalism is a system that recognizes the right of the individual to do as he pleases and to either reap the rewards or suffer the penalties of his actions.

People behave morally or immorally whether or not they are capitalists; capitalism is simply the most efficient mechanism for the creation of wealth. Most people don’t see that as a bad thing.

Ender

 

[freesoulhope]

At its most fundamental level, capitalism is a system that recognizes the right of the individual to do as he pleases and to either reap the rewards or suffer the penalties of his actions.

People behave morally or immorally whether or not they are capitalists; capitalism is simply the most efficient mechanism for the creation of wealth. Most people don’t see that as a bad thing.

Ender

Wealth for what? When there are a very few people with billions, and there are huge amount of people who work just to live above the poverty line, I fail to understand the positivity of such a system.

If those with wealth gave back to the people who made them wealthy in first place, then capitalism would have a purpose.

People like taking the weatlh out, but they dont like giving back.

The problem is, we don’t have a “Pyramid system", where those who have wealth, give back to the system, so that those who have nothing or little, have a chance to obtain the level that the wealthy have achieved off the backs of the poor (at the very least a dignified life stlye for everyone). That would be a “just and fair kind of capitalism” because its for the benefit of the “human race”, not just the individual; and there’s no reason why we can’t implement such a system, unless those with power, are only interested in keeping power and control, rather then playing there part to help bring the human race to a state of peace, harmony, and unity; since we are also “material beings” with “material needs” as well as “spiritual”,(Since that’s how God made us) we have a right to demand that we live in an economically fair society.

We fail to understand that there would be no wealth at all if the “rich man” was the only human in the world. Wealth is maintained though “human farming”, exploitation, competition, war; not fair trade. If the human race is working just to make a few people live a “materially” fullfilling life, i dont see the point of capitilism, but to abuse and use.

 

[mary_bobo]

Wealth for what? When there are a very few people with billions, and there are huge amount of people who work just to live above the poverty line, I fail to understand the positivity of such a system.

If those with wealth gave back to the people who made them wealthy in first place, then capitalism would have a purpose.

Pardon, but who do you think pays the biggest percent of the tax—the evil rich.
People like taking the weatlh out, but they dont like giving back.

The problem is, we don’t have a “Pyramid system", where those who have wealth, give back to the system, so that those who have nothing or little, have a chance to obtain the level that the wealthy have achieved off the backs of the poor (at the very least a dignified life stlye for everyone). That would be a “just and fair kind of capitalism” because its for the benefit of the “human race”, not just the individual; and there’s no reason why we can’t implement such a system, unless those with power, are only interested in keeping power and control, rather then playing there part to help bring the human race to a state of peace, harmony, and unity; since we are also “material beings” with “material needs” as well as “spiritual”,(Since that’s how God made us) we have a right to demand that we live in an economically fair society.

Please show me where in the Constitution it says that. You seem to think that people who gain wealthy got it because it fell out of the sky. Most of them earned it by working their behinds off, working long hours, saving, etc.
We fail to understand that there would be no wealth at all if the “rich man” was the only human in the world. Wealth is maintained though “human farming”, exploitation, competition, war; not fair trade. If the human race is working just to make a few people live a “materially” fullfilling life, i dont see the point of capitilism, but to abuse and use.

Sounds to me like you might like the Socialist Party better.

 

[chevalier]

Comunism is wrong, as is capitalism. You can’t go right with pure capitalism or pure socialism, let alone pure comunism.

 

[Ender]

Wealth for what?

Where is life better: wealthy nations or poor ones? Capitalism allows people to create better lives for themselves.

If those with wealth gave back to the people who made them wealthy in first place, then capitalism would have a purpose.

The willingness to give money has nothing to do with how that money is earned. America is a wealthy nation and in fact is also a very generous one.

The problem is, we don’t have a “Pyramid system", where those who have wealth, give back to the system, so that those who have nothing or little, have a chance to obtain the level that the wealthy have achieved off the backs of the poor

I don’t think you understand how wealth is created. It certainly doesn’t come from the “backs of the poor.”

we have a right to demand that we live in an economically fair society.

A system that allows individuals to make their own decisions and keep the fruits of their labor sounds pretty fair.

Wealth is maintained though “human farming”, exploitation, competition, war; not fair trade.

Well, the competition part is right, nothing else has any relation to reality. Define wealth. The poor in this country are wealthy relative to most of the rest of the world. For the most part, Americans create wealth for themselves by working … you know, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. This is how it’s done; it’s not magic and it’s not sinister.

Ender

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to read this whole thread before responding, so pardon me if I reiterate what someone has already said (or miss the evolution of the debate). I’m just going to answer the orginal question.

By its nature, capitalism does not encourage a moral society any more than free will, by its nature, does. However, if we examine the history of strictly regulated economies (and I am, admittedly, neither an historian nor an economist), we see that they do not do so, either.

An early response to the OP addressed the fact that no system instituted by man to order our world is likely to promote a just and moral society; I would tend to agree with this. What is our alternative, then?

Lacking an inherently just mechanism for structuring an economy, our only choice is one that allows people a certain degree of freedom to do as they will. A capitalist economy such as ours (the US), although riddled with unjust and unethical (and immoral) business practices at the very least provides an opportunity for business men to choose to do good. A highly regulated economy will, theoretically, force good behavior on business and industry; will force the “redistribution of wealth” – not out of charity on the parts of the rich, but out of obligation to the state. While the immediate good of looking after the needs of the poor may be accomplished, it does not allow people to choose whether to be selfish or charitable.

Again, though, upon examining the history of such regulated economic systems in our world, it is easy to see that they do no more (in many cases, much less) to provide for the common man.

My mother is an immigrant from Cuba, and she returned to visit her native country a few years ago, for the first time in nearly 30 years. Among other things, she told me that she and the cousins with whom she stayed had to purchase beef on the black market because its sale was banned. And this after years of her sending razor blades and powdered aspirin taped inside of greeting cards.

I suppose I should’ve said outright that I have something of an emotional reaction to this topic, but my point is a valid and logical one: given that all human justice, government, and economic systems are inherently flawed, we must choose the ones that order our society as justly as possible while at the same time allowing individuals the right to choose their own ultimate destiny.

Please don’t interpret this to mean that I feel “anything goes”, however.

Peace,
Dante