Hazmatac Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Why does capitalism need a philosophical base to be defended properly? What if self-interest is not brought up when mentioning why capitalism is the proper social system, and what does that lead to? My guess is that it is the individual rights that must be upheld through the philosophical base. Is this what happened in the 19th century when we transitioned from a lot of free market to gradually less and less? I ask because I never came across why this is so in my reading of Objectivism, and frankly if there's not a good reason than Objectivists shouldn't have a big deal with Libertarians, but they do and I am left in the dark as to why. Could someone turn on the light? Is the opposition to Libertarians valid? Also, what IS the philosophical base that must be explained to defend capitalism? Is metaphysics and epistemology necessary to explain Morality and Self-Interest, and thus Capitalism? What are the important points that must be brought up in the more basic branches to defend capitalism? What is the likely conclusion of the philosophical base being left out in a newly free and free market society? Can philosophy bring the free market back to a statism if the free market isn't defended on a philosophical level? Alright, that's about all the questions about this issue I have, and I think it is an important aspect of Objectivism which ought to be understood to really understand the idea of Capitalism and what makes it work, so thank you for your responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Because it is morality that ultimately shapes politics. Note the jump to the right in the Reagan and Thatcher years, as soon as there was some prosperity - the consensus seemed to be "Great! Now we can be moral again" and the socialist mechanisms regrew. Nothing but a moral defence of capitalism can save it. It did not have a good one originally (God is insufficient) and allowed the left to claim the moral superiority. Altruism, being a dominant philosophy, is the reason that socialism spreads in politics, it appeals to the ethics of many people. Similarly, you can see the rising influence of pragmatic politics. See Yaron Brook's "Capitalism without guilt", from the ARC lecture series, available on the ARC and ARI websites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Capitalism doesn't have any needs. It's people who need a philosophical base for capitalism, to be able to accept and defend it. The reason is that humans are, by nature, rational and moral creatures, who (consciously or unknowingly) base their actions on philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Yup, the replies above say it all; some added thoughts are that early Capitalism was of a practical nature -" laissez nous faire" (leave us to do) - a recognition that men best created wealth for themselves and benefits for others by non-interference from state and monarchy. But without a moral backbone it was too easily misunderstood, presumed upon, and ultimately derided for being too mundane. It seems that as those early practitioners were mainly Christian, a sort of 'soul/body' dichotomy arose that resulted in those Capitalists becoming guilty and ashamed of their talent to create wealth. This set the scene for the disgusting doctrine I remember from students in the early 70's, that Capitalism was useful, but immoral, while the most perfectly humane system, Marxism, unfortunately didn't work in practice. So every Statist since then has tried to impose a mix of the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L-C Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 This set the scene for the disgusting doctrine I remember from students in the early 70's, that Capitalism was useful, but immoral, while the most perfectly humane system, Marxism, unfortunately didn't work in practice. One would then wonder to what end Capitalism was immoral when it was constructive, and in what manner Marxism was humane when it failed. Altruism: the morality, not primarily of redistribution but of destruction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.