1.) Would you label free market/vanilla capitalism (however you choose to answer) as moral or immoral? Now, is it more or less moral in comparison to its alternatives, such as socialism and all its variations? 2.) Is it moral/immoral to infringe upon property rights in the name of the "common good"? Thank you for your time. I am a student with a strong interest in governmental philosophy and appreciate the concise answers your website provides. Sincerely, Alexander C. R.

Comments

Okay, here's a concise answer: Immoral, unless certain predictable consequences are mitigated or corrected. Why? Well, it depends precisely what you mean by capitalism. If one takes a pure form of market capitalism, I'd say it's immoral because it makes no evaluative judgments that take into account the distribution of goods and services or costs and benefits, the suffering of various actors, or considerations of flourishing. Says the radical capitalist: whatever outcome the market produces is okay. I disagree. I think that because of (1) the profound importance in human life of the issues and (2) the intimate connection between (a) economic matters like distribution and (b) moral matters like need, fairness, flourishing, justice etc. the operations of a capitalist economy must be regulated, guided, and directed to produce morally desirable outcomes. In particular moral considerations should guide economic activity to produce outcomes that are fair, moderate and equitable, outcomes that promote human flourishing for a maximally large population, and outcomes favorable to the eco-systems of the Earth. (In this, I'm pretty clearly opposed to philosopher Robert Nozick's position. He argues that so long as the process is free that take outcomes are proper. I think he's wrong about freedom and about outcomes.) About socialism, well, again it depends upon how you define the term. There are, really, countless kinds of socialism. From where I sit, I'd say that there are forms of socialism that are better than capitalism and forms of socialism that are worse. My own sense, is that maximally centrally planned socialisms are generally undesirable. What seems to work best is a kind of hybrid of socialism and capitalism. Let's call it the mixed economy. The salient argument in political economy, then, shouldn't be socialism or capitalism. It should be what mix of the two works best, how should they be mixed to achieve the best outcome.

Is it immoral to infringe upon property rights in the name of the common good? No. I think there are many issues where the common good trumps property rights. But that doesn't mean that it always trumps property rights; in some cases I think property rights win. That's because it has proven, I think, undesirable in ordinary circumstances both to eliminate property rights altogether and to make them inviolable or sacrosanct. So, again, I don't think the argument is property rights or not. The argument is precisely when does the common good trump property rights, and when do property rights trump the common good. Drawinig that line is where the fun really begins.

Read another response by Peter S. Fosl

Read another response about Business, Justice