(Edited the OP to replace "capitalism" with "commerce" as it appears the former term is so loaded as to skew the discussion. All I really meant was commerce any way. For example, the existence of securities markets, banks, and insurance companies is irrelevant to my original intent.)
(Edited also to add the thirteenth principle.)
I would propose that commerce's net result for human well-being is positive; that on that basis its underlying moral principles can reasonably be declared sound; that its underlying moral principles are those that prevent its disruption; and that these are:
1 - No coercion.
2 - No fraud.
3 - No breach of promise.
4 - No negligence.
5 - No pilferage.
6 - No shirking.
7 - No sponging.
8 - No vandalism.
9 - No trespass.
10 - No assault.
11 - No infringement.
12 - No fouling the commons.
13 - No neglect of children.
Agree or disagree? In what particulars? Should the list be added to? Subtracted from?
Captialism is amoral. Some capitalists are moral, others are immoral.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 28, 2011, 05:17:04 AM2 - No fraud.
Oh, there's fraud.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 28, 2011, 05:17:04 AM3 - No breach of promise.
Yeah, there's that, too.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 28, 2011, 05:17:04 AM4 - No negligence.
Oh, man, is there ever that.
Maybe we should back up a bit. What's your definition of capitalism?
Quote from: Will on December 28, 2011, 06:12:01 AM
Captialism is amoral. Some capitalists are moral, others are immoral.
And the immoral ones disrupt the system.
Quote from: Will on December 28, 2011, 06:12:01 AM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 28, 2011, 05:17:04 AM2 - No fraud.
Oh, there's fraud.
Disruptive.
Quote from: Will on December 28, 2011, 06:12:01 AM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 28, 2011, 05:17:04 AM3 - No breach of promise.
Yeah, there's that, too.
Ditto.
Quote from: Will on December 28, 2011, 06:12:01 AM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 28, 2011, 05:17:04 AM4 - No negligence.
Oh, man, is there ever that.
Ditto.
Quote from: Will on December 28, 2011, 06:12:01 AM
Maybe we should back up a bit. What's your definition of capitalism?
The economic systems of the USA, Great Britain, Canada, and Australia would all be examples of capitalism. I could have selected other countries but I arbitrarily selected those four because many of us on this forum hail from one of those four.
I contend that in any of those four countries, the economic system is disrupted at least slightly by any instance of violation of any of the twelve principles I've listed.
I also contend that in any of those four countries, the economic system's net result for human well-being is positive, so disruptions to the system are reasonable construed as negative, and principles encapsulating the prohibition of disruption can reasonably be declared morally sound.
Violations occur. When they occur, they're immoral. Not by the standards put forth by desert nomads four thousand years ago but by standards we can deduce from life as we live it in our world today.
I'll add a thirteenth principle:
13 - No neglect of children.
Our economic systems are disrupted by any instance of neglect of children.
Capitalism is institutionalised greed in the same way that religion is institutionalised superstition and science is institutionalised curiosity and law is institutionalised morality. Capitalism is an excuse to exploit others for one's own gain, it only benefits the greedy, selfish and materialistic in a society. It has a cost/benefit/profit analysis for everything and values nothing it can't turn a buck on.
$0.02
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2011, 08:42:54 AM
Capitalism is institutionalised greed in the same way that religion is institutionalised superstition and science is institutionalised curiosity and law is institutionalised morality. Capitalism is an excuse to exploit others for one's own gain, it only benefits the greedy, selfish and materialistic in a society. It has a cost/benefit/profit analysis for everything and values nothing it can't turn a buck on.
$0.02
What would you replace capitalism with?
I would replace it with a culture of science for science's sake and art for art's sake. But we don't have that yet, unfortunately, and I can't begin to predict if we ever will or if we ever even could. First we would have to overthrow our plutocratic overlords.
Prior to capitalism was there an economic system you think was better than capitalism is? Or do you advocate the abolition of economics itself? My culture of science for science's sake and art for art's sake would abolish economics.
If law is institutionalized morality, then for us today that morality must be Christian, since Christian morality has been dominant for two thousand years. What happens when Christianity fades into oblivion? Will our laws lose their underpinning?
I actually think law exists to enable economic activity. If it didn't serve that purpose, our plutocratic overlords would eliminate it as inconvenient.
I edited the OP to replace "capitalism" with "commerce" as it appears the former term is so loaded as to skew the discussion. All I really meant was commerce any way. For example, the existence of securities markets, banks, and insurance companies is irrelevant to my original intent.
The WordWeb definition works perfectly fine for me: An economic system based on private ownership of capital.
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2011, 08:42:54 AM
Capitalism is institutionalised greed in the same way that religion is institutionalised superstition and science is institutionalised curiosity and law is institutionalised morality. Capitalism is an excuse to exploit others for one's own gain, it only benefits the greedy, selfish and materialistic in a society. It has a cost/benefit/profit analysis for everything and values nothing it can't turn a buck on.
I don't really think of capitalism as an institution.
Greed, hmm that word, if it is associated with cheating I'm all for punishing the cheating.
I think capitalism isa creative beast and a dangerous one, it brings benefits but it can't be allowed free reign. Left to itself it creates extreme boom bust cycles.
An excuse to exploit? Nya, it involves exploiting labour, exploiting has different meanings. Let's say we have a clever man with a good idea of how to free women from hours of drudgery cleaning clothes and to make a buck. He can't build millions of washing machines himself. Capitalism can be a lever to achieve great things, thousands are employed/exploited/used, but we don't have to allow them to be misused. The workers can be better off, the old time housewives are better off, the clever guy is better off.
I quite like the idea of government owning some of the means of production, utilities, health, public broadcasters, science organisations. Some things are best achieved within the dynamics of the capitalist system, other great things never would be.