Capitalist morality is driven by profit. The purpose of capitalist morality is to facilitate the operation of the market place and the creation and accumulation of wealth by individuals operating alone or through a corporation of individuals.
The use of property to create more value is its highest and best use.
The pursuit and possession of property is the fulfillment of capitalist morality.
Productive capacity is the measure of human value.
Profit is a fundamental good.
Contracts must be honored. [1]
Beyond the efficient operation of markets, individuals have no responsibility to the larger population.
Individual pleasures, diversions, relationships, and interests are subservient to the market.
Society is the setting in which the market operates and the good of the market defines the value of society.
Yes, I think that's a good start and we'd need to delve into what property means as well. — Benkei
Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. — CuddlyHedgehog
Can we derive a morality from capitalist ideology or is it an amoral ideology? If we can, what are the ethical rules? — Benkei
What are the ethical rules we can derive from this idea? I'm only going to mention two for now, to see what other people think is relevant since I'm enquiring here not sharing my rock-solild opinion.
- things become available for ownership either through trade or production
- respect private ownership
- respect transfer of ownership — Benkei
A first question, what happens to a transfer of private ownership to the State? Ethical rules say ok but the ideology itself resists this. So it has the possibility of an inherent contradiction if enough people would want to transfer their ownership to the State. Unlikely at the national level. On the other hand, this seems to be the self-evident method for most families. We pool our resources and spend collectively, parents are generally trusted to make decisions on behalf of the family unit. — Benkei
Another question: what is meant with private? Keeping aside for a moment the possible utility of corporations, there doesn't seem to be any reason why a State should promote corporations and allow for shareholding and limited liability. In fact, I suffer a higher liability acting as a person (in principle unlimited) than a corporation. It can also damage the first principle to respect private ownership. If I cause damages as a private person, I must repair those damages. If a corporation does it, it will only have to do so to the extent it has capital - once that's exhausted the damaged party has no recourse and his private ownership is not fully respected. — Benkei
Another question: what is the effect of the basic immortality of corporations? Instinctually, I'd suspect there's some equilibrium with a large concentration of property and means of production in the hands of corporations, shares in the hands of elites and consumer goods for everyone else. — Benkei
And yet most capitalists favor corporations. I don't follow what special protection they are afforded that you find offensive to the capitalist. I would suspect that large corporations feel they are much bigger targets to lawsuits than average citizens. In fact, the way the typical citizen of even moderate worth reduces his exposure to liability is by purchasing insurance, which is nothing more than hiring a corporation to accept his potential financial burdens. And what is insurance other than the private enterprise solution to communal burden sharing?Considering the above I'm tempted to argue that if you're in favour of capitalism you'd have to argue against the protections afforded to corporations. — Benkei
I'd submit this suggestion is lazy. It simply rejects the declarations of faith by the capitalists as not being heartfelt (and perhaps ironically proclaims the avowed Marxist atheists the truly religious). I am quite certain that those declaring their Christian faith truly believe, which means the object should be in figuring out how they can consistently reject the idea of providing the public good through an institutionalized economic system yet truly believe the public should be cared for. The answer lies in the capitalist's profound distrust for government, believing that any good that ought be doled out to the public ought be done privately, voluntarily, and with as little government intervention as possible.The bourgeoisie, the owners of capital, may profess the morality of Christianity, or another religion, but in general find the demands of an otherworldly faith to be of little value, except for public relations purposes. Naked capitalism is the ruthless pursuit of wealth. — Bitter Crank
I am quite certain that those declaring their Christian faith truly believe, which means the object should be in figuring out how they can consistently reject the idea of providing the public good through an institutionalized economic system yet truly believe the public should be cared for. The answer lies in the capitalist's profound distrust for government, believing that any good that ought be doled out to the public ought be done privately, voluntarily, and with as little government intervention as possible. — Hanover
and perhaps ironically proclaims the avowed Marxist atheists the truly religious — Hanover
This question overly tips your hand, not that it was hard to decipher the bias, but it detracts from the objectivity of the conversation. The question assumes corporations are immoral. — Hanover
So what is the American Dream then? — René Descartes
To some extent, yes. But for the most part the relationship is that capitalism occasionally breaks down. Socialism is imported as a fix. — frank
Well, make your Ts more prominent if you want a meaningful response. — Hanover
This confuses me a bit. The right to eminent domain exists in the most capitalist of countries and the taking of the property must be accompanied by just compensation. Taxation is another method of transfer of wealth from the private to the public. Neither of these are antithetical to capitalism, at least not how it's practiced. Even the staunchest libertarian would acknowledge some role for the state and therefore some need for taxation and sharing of wealth. Again, this turns into a matter of degree as opposed to to type. I just don't really know how your Marxist society will be structured and how it can adhere to extreme forms of non-ownership. Even should there be no private right to own land, I'd suspect that the government must provide some possessory right to land (you've got to be somewhere) that cannot be removed without some legal basis. — Hanover
Here's the use of the word the American Dream: — René Descartes
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.