Is capitalism morally right?

Answer 1

Read Atlas Shrugged or any other book but the philosopher/author Ayn Rand or any number of her followers and you will see that laisssez-faire capitalism is altruistically moral. The problem with "capitalism" as many see it today is that it is not what it was originally set out to be. It is not hands off by the government and it is in a lot of cases not moral, but this comes about due to the interference rought by the implementation of socialist ideas and practices. (See the New Deal.) When government looks to steal from the rich and give to poor it handicaps the poor even further by making them more likely to practice a class desegregation and devalue themselves and the possibilities their life has to offer. It also makes those on the other side of the coin(Successful, rich, choose your own classification) less likely to be able to succeed and more likely to turn to immoral ways of hiding this success in order to protect it from socialistic ideas like the redistricution of wealth.
What is ironic is that this country was founded on the strongest principles of morality like individual responsibility, liberty, and yes capitalism but has implemented more items from the communist manifesto than many socialist governments. (Higher taxation for rich, end of inheritence (See death tax) government schools, welfare, etc etc etc...)

The problem is that many people are ignorant to just what morality is and as such do not understand the question "What is moral" This is probably because since childhood morality has been equated with good and immorality evil. So if it seems nice and upholds the quote from Wrath of Khan states "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few" than it must be moral. But what could be more immoral than devaluing a human being and telling them hey you CANT be as successful as x y or z person without us. What could be worse than taking a human beings endless resources of mind body and spirit and stripping them away with wrist flick of a hand out. With this you see the differentiation between a number of things in today's society. One is that of true capitalism (The one whish I believe your question was truly about given the upcoming speech by Rand follower and scholar Dr. Davidson at Tufts University I believe) and the socialistic communistic hybrid that is implemented in today's America at least and more likely the world as whole. One of the best illustration that I find for capitalism being turned on its head is the idea of free trade agreements being made by federal governments throughout the world. The whole idea of laissez-faire capitalism is that government would stay out of the business of business and let them trade with whomever they chose. The differentiation between old and new is seen in politics today as well. And I wont get into republican vs. democrat because I am no longer naive enough to believe their is a difference. But it is illustrated by conservatism vs. socialism (They still try to hide behind the word progressive but it is Marxism to the letter) A hand up vs. a hand out is how I see it and a hand up is always moral. To show faith in the individual to say I did it so can you. To show a way instead of closing the door to the path for fear they will never make it is right, is just, is moral, And so is capitalism. When left alone.

American capitalism has brought about an abundance of wealth, material goods, personal liberty, and political freedom that the world has never seen before. These are good and moral things even if certain individual wish to villify the process in the efforts of furthering personal political agendas (See wealth redistribution)

***Addition***Edit***Answer to Critique***
In regards to the retort about Ayn Rand not being a philosopher and marginally being a writer please look up in any philosophy text book (which refrences the twentieth century) the word/idea objectivism. This was the largest philosophical movement in the least century and some scholars would argue it ranks among the most influential philosophical movements in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_movement
As to the quip about her being an author I would simply ask you to look up the words "best seller" in any search engine to get an idea of where her works rank historically. For instance Atlas Shrugged was first published in 57 and has been a best seller for more than four decades. I would say that would constitute her an author.
http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/courses/bestsellers/search.cgi?title=Atlas+Shrugged

"A 1991 book review written by Roy A. Childs mentions that over 5 million copies have been sold to date.

Source: Laissez Faire Books: www.lfb.org/"

A lot of books sold for not being an author, eh?

Answer 2

That depends. If you're using conservative morals as a guideline, then yes, there's nothing wrong with capitalism. But considering the question, I'm guessing you're a liberal. So in that case, what you really need to ask is "Is capitalism politically correct and popular". As far as I can tell, liberals do not have a base set of values from which to determine what is and isn't "moral". Their values seem to shift with the breeze and flow with the tide. If enough people are doing it, it must be OK. But hey, if you don't "feel" that capitalism is right, there are plenty of countries that don't practice it.

Answer 3

At present: clearly no.
The question of whether capitalism can be practised in a morally acceptable way is an extremely pressing one. Personally, I am confident that it can, but I am sceptical that there is the political will to make the sacrifices necessary to salvage it.

Edit: James D - Ayn Rand could, in the loosest possible sense, be described as a writer. There is no way anyone could call her a philosopher.
Theorangeevil - *whom* does capitalism free? It is true that some people's intrinsic right to freedom is respected by the global capitalist economy, but your intrinsic rights may be enjoyed at the expense of somebody else's.

Answer 4

Capitalism is the most efficient way of distributing goods and services. It's also the freest.

That which is free is morally right. The free market depends on the voluntary transactions of human beings, which means that anything that's unfree (fraud, force) is un-capitalist and unethical. Although capitalism is morally neutral in one sense--capitalism doesn't promise to always produce good results since its actors (human beings) are flawed and self-interested--it's also free, and freedom is the intrinsic right of every human being.

Answer 5

Capitalism doesn't take morality into account. Morality can only be "enforced" by governments, and such restrictions would defeat the concept of pure capitalism.

Answer 6

its a loss of unity and social identity from the crowded cities and the every man for them self attitude. But in all our dealings we recognize the need for cooperation and splitting up the booty, but this is still limited to our local tribes and groups. Social organizations expand but often the power still lies with your local compadres within the corporation. When we recognize the need for a healthy society for a healthy consumer base, it's morally bearable.

Answer 7

Capitalism is morally neutral, which is why it irks me when people talk about that magical fix-all, the market. If capitalism were a religion, the all knowing and wise market would be god. Bleh.

Answer 8

Capitalism itself is not immoral. It's the way that some practitioners use it which is. It's no wonder that Christ told his followers that the "love of money is the root of all evil." I just wish that a lot of so-called "Christian" evangelists and some corporate moguls and politicians would learn that lesson.

Answer 9

In my opinion no. In an honest world yes.