Capitalism and government regulation

TimG · October 28, 2012

Of course, that's not my code or the code we have here. (In Canada)

Which is why morality is necessarily subjective. You could look at many societies over the course of history and create a moral code from the common elements but some elements which we accept today such as religious/racial tolerance would not be one of them. The latter is something we came up with because we looked at our society and realized that it could not function effectively without it.

BTW the global has an article which makes a point which I had not realized: psychopathy to psychologists is a spectrum of behavior and not all psychopaths are what people would call "evil". In fact being a "psychopath" is a requirement for any inspiring leader. I suspect that the left wing obsession which "psychopaths in board room" stems from a complete misunderstanding of what psychopathy is in a clinical sense.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/how-can-you-tell-if-someone-is-a-psychopath-not-all-are-predators/article4705262/

Edited October 28, 2012 by TimG

Pliny · October 28, 2012

Ok - I looked back on this. Morality can be considered in either a thought or deed. The question "Is capitalism moral ?" is clearly about thoughts, the philosophy. There is a morality there, in the act of trading, and you have pointed that out. But I don't think that capitalism itself can be said to be moral since it involves pursuing self-interest inside a moral code.

What does "pursuing self-interest" mean? If you have a family isn't its welfare a "self-interest"? If you are patriotic isn't your nation a "self-interest"?

Self-interest doesn't mean you are only concerned with yourself and your personal well-being. It is your interest in others and their well-being that preserves and provides for your well-being. The whole liberal philosophy is built on that and it becomes a real problem when those you are helping become tools for your personal success. It is self-centredness and selfishness that give both capitalism and socialism a bad name. The difference is in their effect. The self-centred socialist creates dependency upon as many citizens as possible and is far more destructive to society in general because he is backed by the laws he makes and can enforce. The self-centred capitalist will end up destroying himself, his business and sullying the name of capitalism. Rockefeller, in stating that Competition was a sin, was a very revealing statement about his "brand" of competition.

You know, I finally figured out yesterday why Celebrities are so supportive of today's liberalism and why Obama is as popular as he is. They want social justice, equality and all those nice things that today's form of liberalism promises. It's because Celebrity is all about image and nothing more. You cannot condemn those that are in the limelight for saying they are on the side of helping those that are less fortunate than themselves and popularity is what it is all about. It makes them look good. Guys like Clint Eastwood, Jon Voight and others slanted more to the right wing have a tendency to disregard or ignore image. They don't care as much about it as their fellow left wing celebrities. They appear to be hard-ass, uncaring boors. What happened to the Dixie Chicks? Their music catered to a red-neck right wing audience and their political opposition to Bush destroyed their image for their audience and it destroyed their popularity.

So does anyone say George Clooney is pursuing his own self-interest? Does it look like Barbra Streisand is only concerned about herself? That isn't the image they wish to project and they can't project that image by being right wing and forwarding individual independence and self-reliance. Besides that might create more competition for them.

How about guys like Sean Penn who are way out there in left field. He doesn't seem to be too concerned about his image by being a hard core socialist and supporting people like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. It is interesting to note his father was a hard core socialist as well. But here is a guy who embraces the socialist philosophy to the point of being an activist and far beyond being simply a Democrat who supports liberal causes. What about Bill Maher? He has an image that is popular among liberals and tends to be outspoken about politics but what he does is mostly criticize the right wing. Jon Stewart is similar but not as abrasive as Maher. So they have an image to keep up. Sometimes Jon will criticize the left but not too often it is a little destructive to the image. Maher almost never criticizes the left. During the first Presidential debate he said that maybe Obama does need a teleprompter or suggested maybe he was high on pot. That is as critical of the left as he can get.

Most Celebrities are just politically naive and the left-wing narrative conforms to promoting their image. There are buffoons like Jeanine Garofolo who are actively socialists and then there are some right wing political activists as well. For the majority I think it is just about the superfluous image and perception since their whole career and lives revolve around the creation of image and perception.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Pliny

Michael Hardner · October 28, 2012

Which is why morality is necessarily subjective. You could look at many societies over the course of history and create a moral code from the common elements but some elements which we accept today such as religious/racial tolerance would not be one of them. The latter is something we came up with because we looked at our society and realized that it could not function effectively without it.

Well what does "is capitalism moral" ask as a question then ? On a certain level, anything is moral. Doesn't it mean to ask whether it is moral in our context, not whether it is moral in some theoretical context.

bleeding heart · October 28, 2012

Self-centred and aggressive and unwilling to trust because they were instilled with the concept that Capitalism is a dog eat dog race to the bottom and you have to really look out for yourself. The truth is, to succeed in business you have to look after your customer and understand what society needs and wants.

I don't think much of O"Leary, but I suspect he's extremely practical. ("I'd be a commie if I could make a buck at it," as he said.) So I imagine, in customer-based business, he would ensure to look after their needs and wants...not from "morality," but because he would presume that others are concerned about "morality"...so it would make business sense.

(Which, yes, does somewhat contradict what he's said...but then, I don't believe he's a deep thinker. Or, it's all an act...a possibility I think is real.)

TimG · October 28, 2012

Well what does "is capitalism moral" ask as a question then ? On a certain level, anything is moral. Doesn't it mean to ask whether it is moral in our context, not whether it is moral in some theoretical context.

The question "is capitalism moral" is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question where answering yes or no implies things that are not true. The correct answer is "capitalism is neither moral or amoral - it serves a different purpose in society".

Did you see the paragraph on psychopaths that I added?

Edited October 28, 2012 by TimG

Pliny · October 28, 2012

Hmmm.... we're getting pretty philosophical here so I'm on thin ice... I guess I would say yes, assuming they're acting according to a code of conduct. Of course, that's not my code or the code we have here. (In Canada)

You guess it is moral? Let me help you a bit Michael. It is moral for them to burn a witch at the stake. They are protecting society. Morality is built upon what society has learned forwards the preservation of that society. It may be considered that Islamic terrorists are acting morally by attempting to destroy western civilization. That's morality. Changing morality involves changing the culture and adopting new morals. It is an evolutionary process.

Christianity has a set of commandments one of which says thou shall not kill. It should be thou shall not murder because self-defence can be a justification to kill. Is that what Islam is about self-defence? They have the right to kill the infidel with impunity but that is not self-defence it is a moral code designed to protect and forward the Islamic way of life. It cannot in that sense be considered "evil". It is moral.

Western society changed when freedom of religion was adopted as a part of its moral code. It was more inclusive and granted people more freedom so they came to North America some for the opportunity and some to escape prosecution and degradation.

Pliny · October 28, 2012

I don't think much of O"Leary, but I suspect he's extremely practical. ("I'd be a commie if I could make a buck at it," as he said.) So I imagine, in customer-based business, he would ensure to look after their needs and wants...not from "morality," but because he would presume that others are concerned about "morality"...so it would make business sense.

(Which, yes, does somewhat contradict what he's said...but then, I don't believe he's a deep thinker. Or, it's all an act...a possibility I think is real.)

So his level of personal ethics is fairly low if he would consider being a commie if he could make a buck at it. Does he fail to recognize that being a commie precludes him from owning a buck?

I agree with you and think it is a bit of an act. Why he likes that cold, uncompromising, dis-compassionate image is a mystery. Guess he feels it is macho and masculine, and scientifically an unemotional and thus rational and pragmatic approach to life in a capitalist society.

Pliny · October 28, 2012

The question "is capitalism moral" is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question where answering yes or no implies things that are not true. The correct answer is "capitalism is neither moral or amoral - it serves a different purpose in society".

Yes, I agree. It concerns itself with ethics which is more about individual behavior and not a societal code of behavior.

bleeding heart · October 28, 2012

So his level of personal ethics is fairly low if he would consider being a commie if he could make a buck at it. Does he fail to recognize that being a commie precludes him from owning a buck?

I suspect he was being mischievous, as part of his tv celebrity shtick.

I agree with you and think it is a bit of an act. Why he likes that cold, uncompromising, dis-compassionate image is a mystery. Guess he feels it is macho and masculine, and scientifically an unemotional and thus rational and pragmatic approach to life in a capitalist society.

Maybe so; and some people enjoy being provocative, for various reasons.

And just to be clear, the very idea that some entity called "capitalists" are cold and lack compassion is a flawed premise on its face. We're all just people...sharing many flaws, and many excellent qualities.

Edited October 28, 2012 by bleeding heart

Pliny · October 29, 2012

I suspect he was being mischievous, as part of his tv celebrity shtick.

Maybe so; and some people enjoy being provocative, for various reasons.

And just to be clear, the very idea that some entity called "capitalists" are cold and lack compassion is a flawed premise on its face. We're all just people...sharing many flaws, and many excellent qualities.

True, but it seems to be a common view of capitalism among the left and increasingly so among Business admin graduates taught to pursue self-interest in its selfish sense.

Michael Hardner · October 29, 2012

Western society changed when freedom of religion was adopted as a part of its moral code. It was more inclusive and granted people more freedom so they came to North America some for the opportunity and some to escape prosecution and degradation.

Why are you going on about this ? It's a tangent to what we're talking about - there are dozens of threads about that religion - go find one to post this on.

Michael Hardner · October 29, 2012

The correct answer is "capitalism is neither moral or amoral - it serves a different purpose in society".

The opposite of moral isn't amoral - it should be immoral in this context. So capitalism is neither moral nor immoral - it is amoral.

Did you see the paragraph on psychopaths that I added?

Yes.

Pliny · October 30, 2012

Why are you going on about this ? It's a tangent to what we're talking about - there are dozens of threads about that religion - go find one to post this on.

Going on about it? I just mentioned it as a factor in the evolvement of a societal moral code.

Pliny · October 30, 2012

The opposite of moral isn't amoral - it should be immoral in this context. So capitalism is neither moral nor immoral - it is amoral.

If you look at what morality is then you will see that for a free market to exist and sustain itself a moral code of behavior will evolve. It will be expected you are honest in your dealings or you will not be able to participate. You cannot misrepresent your product or service, and you should honour your contractual commitments. Many laws come out of those fundamental expectations and morality is more about a system of laws or code of behavior within a system.

Michael Hardner · October 30, 2012

Going on about it? I just mentioned it as a factor in the evolvement of a societal moral code.

Right, but I wasn't disputing that - I said as much in my previous post, I think. I was trying to figure out why you made a long post on that example. Oh well.

Michael Hardner · October 30, 2012

If you look at what morality is then you will see that for a free market to exist and sustain itself a moral code of behavior will evolve.

Yes, yes, but you're just rehashing what TimG and I discussed above, I think.

eyeball · October 30, 2012

...for a free market to exist and sustain itself a moral code of behavior will evolve.

No, you've got that backwards. Moral behaviour has to evolve first.

Edited October 30, 2012 by eyeball

Pliny · November 1, 2012

No, you've got that backwards. Moral behaviour has to evolve first.

Behavior is what occurs first. The decision if it is moral is determined after. The behavior is decided upon as being moral or immoral, agreed to be or not then codified or brought into law. As more behavior occurs the moral code evolves.

Of course, you are not entirely wrong because the individual in acting would be acting in order to survive and if he determined the behavior accomplished that end he would consider it moral and ethical. Cannibals would consider cannibalism to be moral as they justify their behavior by gaining the strength of their enemies. Western society would consider it immoral. Morality is more about regulating the behavior of individuals in a group and not about the individual making the determination that his behavior is moral. It is always moral from the individual's perspective or he would not behave that way.

Sleipnir · November 1, 2012

Behavior is what occurs first. The decision if it is moral is determined after. The behavior is decided upon as being moral or immoral, agreed to be or not then codified or brought into law. As more behavior occurs the moral code evolves.

I think the opposite can be said.

Pliny · November 1, 2012

I think the opposite can be said.

I stand corrected then.

eyeball · November 3, 2012

I doubt it.

Edited November 3, 2012 by eyeball

Pliny · November 3, 2012

I doubt it.

I'm surprised you had to edit that post. But...getting to the point....he stated his opinion. And I think he probably has read some scientific study that convinced him of the correctness of his statement; although he didn't cite any, because he would never think of having an original thought.

eyeball · November 4, 2012

Or he simply recognized a logical progression when he saw one and figured it was obvious enough without need for a study. Something you seemed to agree with after I pointed out the illogical backward nature of evolution that you originally posited.

I think I made the edit because I did something wrong when I first posted it from my smart-phone, which I'm still getting used to.

Pliny · November 5, 2012

Or he simply recognized a logical progression when he saw one and figured it was obvious enough without need for a study. Something you seemed to agree with after I pointed out the illogical backward nature of evolution that you originally posited.

I think I made the edit because I did something wrong when I first posted it from my smart-phone, which I'm still getting used to.

It isn't illogical. You cannot determine morality in a void.