Is capitalism moral?

Ok, here’s ‘my two cents.’

To start, I regard capitalism and liberty as one and the same and I will use them interchangeably. Also, please do not conflict liberty with the vast differences of 'positive liberties' and 'positive rights,' they are contrary to my position presented here.

Perhaps capitalism stands outside of morality. It is possibly not a definable idea that must be forcibly adhered to, but something that can nurture beneficial ideas.

I would like to attribute memetics to the overall positive, and extremely necessary, design of liberty. It in essence does not associate with self-interest or altruism, but rather stands aside to let civilisation voluntarily shape its course. Following this view of memetics, things that work are utilised, and things that don’t work are eventually weeded out. (Apologies for the longwindedness of this, but as a side note, it is interesting that Karl Popper had discussed a similar approach to ideas in his analysis of knowledge and the body-mind problem. It represents what Popper called an “oversimplified tetradic schema of the method of trial and of error elimination”: P1-->TT-->EE-->P2 : “Here ‘P1’ means the problem the problem from which we start. It may be a practical or a theoretical problem. ‘TT’ is a tentative theory which we offer in order to solve that problem. ‘EE’ means a process of error elimination, by way of critical tests, or of critical discussion. ‘P2’ means the problems with which we end – the problems which emerge from the discussions and tests.”)

Quoting Karl Popper, and supporting why I believe the above is important to morality (beware, it’s only an opinion, you’d have to read his books for the foundations of his beliefs), “I think we are living in a world in which we have constantly to revise and constantly to rethink over not only our scientific propositions but also our moral attitudes. There arise new problems which cut right through what we have thought of as generally accepted moral precept, and so on.”

Now, I can see that since Descartes, and following the line of French rationalists, that social engineering has become popular. It is posited that, by rational thinking, a system can be designed that actively moves society towards things that are deemed beneficial to humanity. It is this particular trail of ‘planned’ moralism which 1) cannot understand the constant evolution of humanity, and, 2) by virtue of man’s individuality, not have knowledge/information required to direct appropriately.

Following from that line of thinking, it might not be possible to say one is always better than the other (in terms of selfishness and altruism). There might rather be another view that is tied into an understanding of humanity’s vast differences in opinions and action, but that in the end, we assess each idea for its usefulness and amend as required. The key of course in this view is that we can’t absolutely conclude what is best for humanity, but rather leave it to individuals and inevitable societal cohesion.

When I read John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty,” there was one part that I found influential in my thinking, “Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing."

F. A. Hayek alluded to the same idea in “The Constitution of Liberty.” It wasn’t as though we must ascribe to one belief or the other, but a fusion of the two that worked best in whichever situation. Quoting him, “General altruism, however, is a meaningless conception. Nobody can effectively care for other people as such; the responsibilities we can assume must always be particular, can concern only those about whom we know concrete facts and to whom either choice or special conditions have attached us. It is one of the fundamental rights and duties of a free man to decide what and whose needs appear to him most important.

“The recognition that each person has his own scale of values which we ought to respect, even if we do not approve of it, is part of the conception of the value of the individual personality. How we value another person will necessarily depend on what his values are. But believing in freedom means that we do not regard ourselves as the ultimate judges of another person’s values, that we do not feel entitled to prevent him from pursuing ends which we disapprove so long as he does not infringe the equally protected sphere of others.”

With liberty and capitalism as the bulwark of individuality and spontaneity, it allows this social engineering to occur, but without coercion and absoluteness that I don’t believe possible.