Why justifying Capitalism on religious grounds fails

[Ifat Glassman]

http://ifats-thoughts.blogspot.com/2009/09...-religious.html

Why justifying Capitalism on religious grounds fails (and how to actually justify it)

Capitalism is based on the recognition of man's right to live for his own sake - to be the beneficiary of his own actions.

Jesus was the most extreme example of altruism you would ever see, the exact opposite of self-interest: He sacrificed his life so that sinners may live. The message it sends is "The moral is to live for others".

Every political system is based on ethics. Capitalism is based on rational-self interest. Socialism, communism and fascism are based on altruism, which is the message of Christianity.

Socialism is justified on the grounds of the moral duty of one man to care for another. Capitalism is based on the idea that a man lives primarily for himself, and that he is moral in pursuing HIS life and HIS happiness.

Let us not forget what was going on during the dark ages and what kind of actions were justified by the church.

This is because the message of the bible is inconclusive. One can mold it to whatever fits one's goals.

It is not a coincidence that 5 Rabies reading the bible cannot agree on the interpretation of a single paragraph. It's not that some of them are wrong and one is right - it is that the bible is inherently unclear in meaning and can be interpreted one way or another.

The real defense of Capitalism is reality-based. Facts-based.

We start by looking at the requirements of life for an individual man, the principles and values required for him to live and be happy (which is a successful state of living).

We recognize that man must act to bring and create the things he requires to survive and enjoy his life.

Capitalism is the system that allows a man, every individual, to be free to pursue his life and happiness as would be on a desert island: productivity uninterrupted by other men.

It is only by allowing every individual man this basic requirement for life that a political system actually serves man's life.

One cannot start by asking what is good for a group of people. Such question only makes sense if the intent is to talk about what is good for <span style="font-style:italic;">every individual man</span> in the group. But then that reduces the question back to what is good for a single man.

One cannot claim, that by stealing from one man and giving it to another in the group that one is serving the "good of the group". Why is the good of the group the good of one man, but not of the other?

Yet the good of the "group" is the standard most use to judge political systems.

The only defense of Capitalism that "works" - because it is the real basis for Capitalism, is reality; rational ethics recognizing the requirements of life of a single human being.

Look at reality, not at the "word of god".

[SapereAude]

Nice work.

To quibble a point lest you try to debate this with someone who has a strong background in theology though your portrayal of Jesus is inaccurate- even by Objectivist standards.

To argue we will assume we agree with the position of the bible.

Jesus WAS God in a human body.

Jesus chose to die for our sins, yes.

But as we understand it the death still wouldn't be altruistic.

1) Jesus was aware he was God when he chose to die. He spoke several times of his resurrection and eternal life.

The crucifiction then was simply Jesus walking through a door, he knew he wasn't "dead-dead".

2) He chose to die as one might choose to die for their child.. deciding there is a higher value than your own life and choosing it.

3) Aside from the higher value issue the death was chosen to because he wanted something from it. There was a value gain involved. God wanted a kingdom in Heaven full of people who were "worthy" of him. For this they needed to be indoctrinated and then cleansed.

So really, no "sacrifice" at all.

[brian0918]

Nice work.

To quibble a point lest you try to debate this with someone who has a strong background in theology though your portrayal of Jesus is inaccurate- even by Objectivist standards.

To argue we will assume we agree with the position of the bible.

Jesus WAS God in a human body.

Jesus chose to die for our sins, yes.

But as we understand it the death still wouldn't be altruistic.

1) Jesus was aware he was God when he chose to die. He spoke several times of his resurrection and eternal life.

The crucifiction then was simply Jesus walking through a door, he knew he wasn't "dead-dead".

2) He chose to die as one might choose to die for their child.. deciding there is a higher value than your own life and choosing it.

3) Aside from the higher value issue the death was chosen to because he wanted something from it. There was a value gain involved. God wanted a kingdom in Heaven full of people who were "worthy" of him. For this they needed to be indoctrinated and then cleansed.

So really, no "sacrifice" at all.

An immortal being has no basis for valuation.

[SapereAude]

An immortal being has no basis for valuation.

That is of course a given.

But for the sake of this argument (Jesus' altruistic death) we are looking at it from the point of view of someone who would believe in such a creature as the biblical God.

That is, an eternal, immortal all powerful being who inexplicably wants meat burned for him, has a shellfish allergy, eschews pork to watch his girlish figure and having designed man with a foreskin wants it lopped off.

Obviously, this biblical God does value things.

Good thing he doesn't exist.

Edited October 5, 2009 by QuoVadis

[brian0918]

That is, an eternal, immortal all powerful being who inexplicably wants meat burned for him, has a shellfish allergy, eschews pork to watch his girlish figure and having designed man with a foreskin wants it lopped off.

Obviously, this biblical God does value things.

Good thing he doesn't exist.

See I was also assuming He existed, but just pointing out that he can't value anything, even if he does. But of course, if you're willing to accept one contradiction (a god), you're willing to accept countless others, so there's no basis for argument to occur.

[SapereAude]

See I was also assuming He existed, but just pointing out that he can't value anything, even if he does. But of course, if you're willing to accept one contradiction (a god), you're willing to accept countless others, so there's no basis for argument to occur.

Exactly, the whole faith thing is based on contradictions.

Raised Catholic and having been once very devout I have read the bible far more times than is healthy for anyone.

God definitely values things according to Christianity and Judiasm.

He even prefers certain cuts of meat and specific kinds of perfume.

I find religion often makes gods in our worst images instead of in our best.

How can an omnipotent, immortal being be jealous?

The bible also, most especially in the old testament, contradicts itself about human free will.

[TheAllotrope]

Keep in mind there are also those on the religious right who believe that capitalism should be supported "because it works". They do not see a contradiction between altruist ethics and capitalism. Someone in another thread described it as parasites who try to keep the host as healthy as possible to maximize their long term gain.

The concept of justice is conspicuously absent in this discussion. The person who benefits from an action must be the actor - collectivism does not acknowledge this principle, and instead defines justice as everyone getting the same of everything.

[Ifat Glassman]

Nice work.

To quibble a point lest you try to debate this with someone who has a strong background in theology though your portrayal of Jesus is inaccurate- even by Objectivist standards.

To argue we will assume we agree with the position of the bible.

Jesus WAS God in a human body.

Jesus chose to die for our sins, yes.

But as we understand it the death still wouldn't be altruistic.

1) Jesus was aware he was God when he chose to die. He spoke several times of his resurrection and eternal life.

The crucifiction then was simply Jesus walking through a door, he knew he wasn't "dead-dead".

2) He chose to die as one might choose to die for their child.. deciding there is a higher value than your own life and choosing it.

3) Aside from the higher value issue the death was chosen to because he wanted something from it. There was a value gain involved. God wanted a kingdom in Heaven full of people who were "worthy" of him. For this they needed to be indoctrinated and then cleansed.

So really, no "sacrifice" at all.

You should read "Isn't everyone selfish?" In "The virtue of selfishness" by Ayn Rand.

"He chose to die as one might choose to die for their child.. deciding there is a higher value than your own life and choosing it."

If one chooses altruism as one's morality and then choose to die for the values of altruism it is certainly a sacrifice. Do you agree? If so, maybe I am missing your point.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Actually, it is a contradiction for a theist to say Jesus died on the cross for our sins, but he didn't really really die because he is God and will live forever. Either He died or He didn't. However, since there is no evidence for His resurrection, that, too, is a matter of faith. No one witnessed him coming back to life -- you know, like he had a mild heart attack and awoke from it, which really wouldn't be death anyhow. The belief embraces the contradiction, and is irrational. The contradiction is in the concept of "death" and one either dies or one doesn't -- it can't be both.

I would add to what Ifat wrote in that capitalism is based upon reason and facts, not belief and faith. Belief and faith is not of this world, but capitalism is -- that's the basic contradiction between religion and capitalism. It is their irrationality in ethics that would prohibit rational egoism and life on this earth, as it did when the Church ruled the known world before Aquinas and the rediscovery of Aristotle. So, attempting to uphold capitalism via altruism is a contradictory approach. Sure, capitalism provides the most, but it must be paid for and is not given freely and altruistically.

[Plasmatic]

Actually, it is a contradiction for a theist to say Jesus died on the cross for our sins, but he didn't really really die because he is God and will live forever. Either He died or He didn't. However, since there is no evidence for His resurrection, that, too, is a matter of faith. No one witnessed him coming back to life -- you know, like he had a mild heart attack and awoke from it, which really wouldn't be death anyhow. The belief embraces the contradiction, and is irrational. The contradiction is in the concept of "death" and one either dies or one doesn't -- it can't be both.

I would add to what Ifat wrote in that capitalism is based upon reason and facts, not belief and faith. Belief and faith is not of this world, but capitalism is -- that's the basic contradiction between religion and capitalism. It is their irrationality in ethics that would prohibit rational egoism and life on this earth, as it did when the Church ruled the known world before Aquinas and the rediscovery of Aristotle. So, attempting to uphold capitalism via altruism is a contradictory approach. Sure, capitalism provides the most, but it must be paid for and is not given freely and altruistically.

Actually there's no evidence of a historical Jesus at all. But the story is one that paints the "messiah" as fulfilling the duty of a sacrificial lamb in the Levitical priesthood. He is a "passover" sacrifice for mankind. But heres the catch, you have to "take your cross and follow" him as a "christian" or little christ. So you have to become a sacrifice yourself. Besides the NT paints "Christians" as having "all things in common", so their own scriptures are against capitalism.

[whYNOT]

Besides the NT paints "Christians" as having "all things in common", so their own scriptures are against capitalism.

Some absorbing speculation : ideologically, Christianity and Marxism are related.

Therefore, if communism had eschewed atheism instead of embracing it, what opposition (politically) would the world as a whole given it ?

Just about zero, I expect; the religious right would have jumped onto that altruist bandwagon, - citing that same "because it works" pragmatism - and we would, today, be suffering under Godly Marxists !

[TheAllotrope]

By definition they wouldn't be religious Right. There is such a thing as the religious Left - just look at Obama and his "the Bible tells me to be my brother's keep, my sister's keeper" (paraphrasing, not a true quote here). I think we are currently suffering under such Left-theists.

I do like Thomas' observation that faith is not of this world while capitalism is, though.