Is Capitalism a Just Economic System?

I have been mulling this question over in my mind for the past couple days. So far, I am having trouble justifying capitalism for a couple of reasons:

For as long as I can remember, I have taken for granted the notion that people are inherently selfish and competitive (Locke also took these traits to be intrinsic parts of human nature). Therefore, it seems that capitalism is perfecty suited to us. However, could it not also be the case that people are selfish and competitive as a result of a system that promotes these qualities? What if we lived in a system that promoted and rewarded qualities such as altruism and empathy? Don't we try to instill these qualities in our children to try and combat the more egoistic traits? However, it seems that living in a capitalist system sends a mixed message to our children. Furthermore, selfishness, competitiveness and greed break down the bonds of community. So, wouldn't a more enlightened approach be one that promoted community. I cannot think of a greater good than that of positive interaction between human beings.

I know this is a little more philosophical than what is usually brought up on this board, but it has been giving me fits. So, I am interested in hear what y'all have to say.

Plenty of systems have been tried which were not based on personal gain, and they have all been taken over by people driven by personal gain, because a certain degree of selfishness is (biological in my opinion) human nature.

There is nothing inherent in capitalism which destroys altruism. The reason for the decline in altruism in Western society had been the rise of moral relativism and decline of religion for a moral grounding. When you are taught that there is no absolute right and wrong, you can make up whatever rules you like to deal with others and society.

It sounds like you are attempting to project the nature/nurture argument onto our economic system. If man is greedy, selfish and lazy by nature (which I happen to believe), capitalism is probably the best system we''re going to get, since it has built-in counters to human nature.

However, if these traits are given to us by our environment and upbringing, capitalism would not necessarily be the BEST system, only the current system. We could slowly learn to all live in harmony under marxism or some other ''perfect'' system. As much as I like to listen to John Lennon and imagine that perfect world, I think that our imperfections will prevent us from reaching it.

On preview, what Ral said, too - except for the religion part.

Both of you stated that man is greedy and selfish by nature. However, what justification for this do you have other than current empirical data?

Plenty of systems have been tried which were not based on personal gain, and they have all been taken over by people driven by personal gain

I am not sure if I agree with this entirely. The feudal systems in Europe were overthrown because of gross inequality between the nobility and the serfs, not simply that the serfs were seeking personal gain. The further we move from the state of nature, the less competitive we need to be. We got ourselves out of the ''jungle'' by working together, not stepping on one another for personal gain.

However, what justification for this do you have other than current empirical data?

What more justification is needed? How about all of human history? How about direct personal observation?

The feudal systems in Europe were overthrown because of gross inequality between the nobility and the serfs, not simply that the serfs were seeking personal gain.

Who overthrew the systems, and why? Also, I never indicated that nohing has ever happened out of altruism, but since selfish people are intrinsic to humanity, they will find ways to take advantage of any system - whether it be Communism, welfare, or the US political process.

"Duttybrew" wrote:

Both of you stated that man is greedy and selfish by nature. However, what justification for this do you have other than current empirical data?

Plenty of systems have been tried which were not based on personal gain, and they have all been taken over by people driven by personal gain

I am not sure if I agree with this entirely. The feudal systems in Europe were overthrown because of gross inequality between the nobility and the serfs, not simply that the serfs were seeking personal gain. The further we move from the state of nature, the less competitive we need to be. We got ourselves out of the ''jungle'' by working together, not stepping on one another for personal gain.

He has history on his side as well as many examples to point to. You have no examples to point to that would work on a mass scale.

I think that a comparison of say, North Korea and South Korea or the Cold War superpowers illustrates that humanity is not yet ready for the ''revolution''. Believe me, I wish that we could live in a society like Marx envisioned... but I think we will not be able to get there until we leave this planet, if ever.

Both of you stated that man is greedy and selfish by nature. However, what justification for this do you have other than current empirical data?

Umm...the entirety of human history? Matter of fact, the single most altruistic part of human history can be found in the teachings of Christianity. Some other religions teach altruism as well, but it is only in the seeking of greater spiritual enlightenment that you find altruism regularly introduced into humanity.

The feudal systems in Europe were overthrown because of gross inequality between the nobility and the serfs, not simply that the serfs were seeking personal gain.

Sure they were. They were seeking more than they had, which is the very definition of personal gain.

We got ourselves out of the ''jungle'' by working together, not stepping on one another for personal gain.

Again, personal gain was the motivation for the rise of civilization and society. People found that by working together, they were able to accomplish more with less individual effort. Personal gain is not intrinsically ''bad''. It is only when personal gain is not counter-balanced by a strong moral foundation that you see people putting their own personal gain ahead of potential harm to others.

Believe me, I wish that we could live in a society like Marx envisioned

And I wish that being on fire would feel like a refreshing dip in a cool river...

I am not arguing that we need to immediately move to a ''perfect'' society. I think that as rational agents it is our duty to constantly analyze the status quo so that we can make things better.

I still think that greed and selfishness are learned and are not the only things that can motivate. The conditons of nature dictate that animals do whatever is necessary to stay alive. However, the further we are removed from the state of nature the less we are subject to a fight for survival. I think that we should strive for something greater than what animals aim for. Furthermore, your argument for inherence of greed and selfishness in humans is simply induction. While I agree that induction is a great tool, it cannot really be proved and will never be 100% accurate.

Finally, the questions I was asking in my original post were:

1) Does capitalism promote greed and selfishness in humans?

2) If so, are these traits intrinsically good and traits that moral people should aspire to?

When one is unable to work for his own personal gain, his freedom and his very life has been taken from him.

your argument for inherence of greed and selfishness in humans is simply induction.

...not unlike your belief that ""greed and selfishness are learned?""

Show me a person who has no selfishness in him, and I will concede your point. If it is truly learned, then there must be some who have escaped the lesson.

What is human nature is gravitating towards systems of managed risk. We need risk to break up the tedium and we need to feel we are in control.

The older capitalism gets the more control we can exert over it because we know what influences its trends. Capitalism will never be boring because it will never be completely controlled.

Its like the Constitution. Its a maleable document that will never bend or break no matter how much stress placed upon it.

...not unlike your belief that ""greed and selfishness are learned?""

Show me a person who has no selfishness in him, and I will concede your point. If it is truly learned, then there must be some who have escaped the lesson.

Read the ""Test Your Temperment"" thread in everything else.

INFP''s (Healers, Paladin''s, Champions) like myself have no selfishness. However, we are less than 1% of the population.

Its like the Constitution. Its a maleable document that will never bend or break no matter how much stress placed upon it.

It can however be rendered meaningless by constant tinkering. Which is basically where we are today.

your argument for inherence of greed and selfishness in humans is simply induction.

And by the way, ""induction"" means I started with observation and came to a conclusion. This is true. I used to believe that people were born a blank slate and all attitudes and behavior was learned. The evidence has proved me wrong.

One more somewhat semantic question. If nothing you have is yours, how can you show generosity by giving of what you have?

Capitalism is an economic system, nothing more. It doesn''t prevent parents from teaching moral codes of sharing and generosity. If you see a shortage of these things, put the blame where it belongs.

"fangblackbone" wrote:

INFP''s (Healers, Paladin''s, Champions) like myself have no selfishness. However, we are less than 1% of the population.

I must have missed the wink smiley in this post, Fang... Are you really claiming that you never act out of self-interest?

Selfishness and altruism are observed in the
chimpanzees and bonobos and great apes,
right? So I doubt they''re something that is learned,
although their application is part of what creates
a society.

Moral systems, however, are not necessarily
tied to religion. As Kant showed, a non-religious
system can create good behavior. What''s needed
to create moral behavior is good examples in
everyday life, not just the dogma of any
particular religion.

Tying morality to Christianity is particularly
difficult, since Christianity is derived from
Judaism, Mithraism and other religions local
to the area. If it''s believed, then, that religion
is required for morality, it can''t logically be
Christianity alone. But then the problem arises:
which religions are the *truly* moral ones, and
how would you decide? You can''t just ask
believers, because they are biased, but the
moralities don''t match up either between
religions.

It''s a poser. It may be that moral
systems are in part based on our in-built
notions of selfishness balanced by altruism, and
partly on societal norms that include religion,
business, legal systems, observation of those
around us, and the like.

If everyone in the US suddenly became religious,
I think the relative smallness of the drop in
crime would surprise everyone. After all, even
when the US colonies were small and wholly
homogenous religiously, crime was present.

Religious teaching is not the cure by itself, nor
is it the only cure. However, moral relativism
makes a great slogan to stir the masses and
ignore the real, basic social and economic
pressures that create crime and poverty in
any economic system.

Kinda puts the original spin back into Marx''s
take on it - ""Religion is the opiate of the masses"". Stripped of it''s McCarthyite overtones,
what it means is that it''s easier to use religion
as a distraction, than to fix problems in society.
With capitalism, we need to address the
problems that crop up, not just prescribe a good
dose of weekly worship and hope that everything
will somehow work out.

Robear

However, moral relativism makes a great slogan to stir the masses and ignore the real, basic social and economic pressures that create crime and poverty in any economic system.

In the US today, lack of morals causes crime. Nothing else.

1) Does capitalism promote greed and selfishness in humans?

No, though I believe it can make these traits more socially acceptable.

2) If so, are these traits intrinsically good and traits that moral people should aspire to?

To a degree, yes -- the former more than the latter. Greed and selfishness are two faces to the same coin: an inherent need to hoard. In times of need, this can simply be food, clothing and shelter and we call them by more acceptable terms: conservation and self-preservation. In times of prosperity it can be things which fulfill needs lower on an individual''s list of priorities: entertainment, curiosity, etc.

Greed can be a great motivator, and shouldn''t be discounted as such. Selfishness, I think, has its origins in self-preservation but has a role in the civilized world; specifically in determining when one has stopped helping somebody in need and is instead fostering dependence and/or laziness on the part of the recipient.

Economic models such as socialism which depend upon selflessness and sharing are doomed to failure. In a society where everyone benefits from the work everyone does, you will eventually have people discovering that if they don''t work quite as hard they still enjoy the fruits of the collective labor. In these systems greed (desire for the collective wealth) and selfishness (refusal to expend more energy than necessary) still play a part. Eventually the majority of the people come to realize this, and the overall efficiency of a society declines.

After all, if you get paid the same if you work hard or not at all, why work?

Greed and selfishness are why China is experimenting with capitalism: because they have seen the failure of pure Communism (exhibit A: the Soviet Union) and have realized that nothing gets people working harder than a proportional reward for their effort.

Is capitalism the ultimate economic model? Probably not, though it has proven to provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. I suspect there will always be some sort of inequality in any system, and the ""have nots"" will not always be in their situation due to their own (in)action.

Selfishness

stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others.

exclusive regard to one''s own interest or happiness; that supreme self-love or self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness, without regarding those of others.

Yes, I thinks its safe to say I havent done this save for taking the last cookie every now and then. When I was a kid I used to be jealous that my sister got a new bike on her birthday and I didnt. Is that selfish? No, I think thats more of naive world view where everything is supposed to be fair.

Perhaps Im selfish a bit in my car when I''m pissed off on the highway.

Yes, I thinks its safe to say I havent done this save for taking the last cookie every now and then.

But is that because you lack selfish desires or overcome them when they arise?

"ralcydan" wrote:

In the US today, lack of morals causes crime. Nothing else.

I am inclined to agree, though I''m sure there must be some instances where theft has come about due to dire need in unusual circumstances. Unfortunately I doubt there is any hard data to be found to support this theory.

Some crimes, however, I think we can safely say have nothing to do with financial status. Rape, for one. Vehicular manslaughter is another. Same with arson, vandalism and murder where robbery is eliminated as a motive.

Are you really claiming that you never act out of self-interest?

Of course I act out of self interest everyday. Its the part about ""complete disregard or lack of consideration of others"". That I just cant imagine doing.

But is that because you lack selfish desires or overcome them when they arise?

I dont know. Help me out here. It may be a case by case basis. Give me some examples of selfish desires. It may be that I really dont have any or only a temporary few. Or it may be that Im very creative at making alternate explanations for selfish desires I do have.

Some crimes, however, I think we can safely say have nothing to do with financial status. Rape, for one. Vehicular manslaughter is another. Same with arson, vandalism and murder where robbery is eliminated as a motive.

What about crimes caused by negligence?

I am inclined to agree, though I''m sure there must be some instances where theft has come about due to dire need in unusual circumstances.

I can''t think of any. In a society where both the government and private organizations exist to feed, clothe, house, and educate anyone who asks, the old image of someone stealing to feed their family just doesnt exist anymore.

Rantage wrote:
Some crimes, however, I think we can safely say have nothing to do with financial status. Rape, for one. Vehicular manslaughter is another. Same with arson, vandalism and murder where robbery is eliminated as a motive.

fangblackbone wrote:
What about crimes caused by negligence?

Excellent points, and I agree that there are exceptions. I was referring to the myth that crime is caused by poverty, which generally deals with theft and violent crime. It was not my intention to include jaywalking...

As Kant showed, a non-religious
system can create good behavior.

One small aside. Kant imagined this being possible, he didn''tshowit... Big difference.

I am going to side with Ral for a while. I do believe crime is caused by a lack of morals. In contrast I also think another major part of the crime equation is a glaring gap in the percieved wealth of two groups of people. The gap between the haves and have nots will always be there. We can take steps to raise the living standards of the have nots but the gap will always remain.

I am also going to side with him that correcting and preventing immoral behavior is imperative to reducing crime. I have been thinking that he is also right that religion is better suited to correct immoral behavior than ""society"". If you think about it, we all expect society and look to society to set moral standards but society is commonly afraid to adhere to certain standards because we want to be inclusive and tolerant. Nevermind the fact that society is relative to your location and fickle.

Where are our secular moral pillars? Who do you turn to if it doesnt come from within that wanting something isnt justification for taking it?

One small aside. Kant imagined this being possible, he didn''t show it... Big difference.

It is however well-accepted. That''s the use I
intended. No serious look at morality excludes
Kant''s as a viable system.

If you contend that his system, and those
derived from it, can never yield moral citizens,
please, show us why.

Robear

A moral person can commit a crime. In fact, it
is well-known, the subject of many books and
newspaper stories. There must be something
more to crime than just immorality. If being
moral is not an innoculator, then we can''t conclude
that teaching morals alone is protection against
crime.

Consider a perfectly moral person, who then
commits a crime. At that point, clearly his morality
has not prevented the crime. Is he then immoral
for the period of time preceding the crime? Is he
necessarily immoral afterwards?

Robear