Capitalism: An Invisible Prison (tentative title )
Part 1: The Curse of Privatization
Capitalism is “an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profit in a market economy. Central characteristics include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and wage labor” (wiki definition because I couldn’t phrase it better). We will analyze these characteristics (and some others) in more detail and consider whether they are actually a benefit to humanity or not.
First aspect to consider is privatization. As we can see in the definition above, this is a necessary element of capitalism. The concept of privatization in itself is not a bad thing as long as everyone has an equal chance in the purchasing and owning. As individuals, if we don’t have this equal chance, then right off the bat capitalism is favouring those who have better resources (see money). So yes, anyone can purchase products, items, space, etc. in the open market if and only if they have the means to do so (and those who have more means aren’t willing to outbid them). We can already see how just from this basic point, those with the means are already well ahead of the game versus those who start out with much less.
Now add to this the fact that corporations have been given the same rights as the individual (I think it’s referred to as corporate personhood or something like that, and it’s written into law ffs! i forget the name of the court case which set the precedent). Suddenly, we’ve set up a system that a corporation (see monopoly) can own as much as they want and can exist as long as they want (originally, the idea of a corporation was set for a limited time only and then dissolved after their business transaction was done). Therefore, in the private, global market the rich, corporations have a huge advantage over everyone else. We will come back to this concept later on and show that they in fact have even a bigger advantage due to the nature of capitalism.
Coming Soon: Part 2: Money, Money, Money - Motivation By Greed
EDIT: btw Big Mike, may i ask what your educational background is? am i getting into a debate with an expert lol? i'm still up for it, mind you, but just curious. i'm no political philosophy expert i'll admit, but i do feel like i have an above average understanding on the subject.
My educational Background:
1983-91: Caroline M. Thompson/McKay Elementary Schools (Graduate)
1991-96: Centennial Secondary School (Graduate)
1996-99: Emmanuel Bible College (Dropout)
As you can see, you have little to fear due to my education . I'm no economics expert either, but I also think I have an above average understanding.
Capitalism: An Invisible Prison (tentative title )
Part 1: The Curse of Privatization
Capitalism is “an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profit in a market economy. Central characteristics include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and wage labor” (wiki definition because I couldn’t phrase it better). We will analyze these characteristics (and some others) in more detail and consider whether they are actually a benefit to humanity or not.
First aspect to consider is privatization. As we can see in the definition above, this is a necessary element of capitalism. The concept of privatization in itself is not a bad thing as long as everyone has an equal chance in the purchasing and owning. As individuals, if we don’t have this equal chance, then right off the bat capitalism is favouring those who have better resources (see money). So yes, anyone can purchase products, items, space, etc. in the open market if and only if they have the means to do so (and those who have more means aren’t willing to outbid them). We can already see how just from this basic point, those with the means are already well ahead of the game versus those who start out with much less.
Now add to this the fact that corporations have been given the same rights as the individual (I think it’s referred to as corporate personhood or something like that, and it’s written into law ffs! i forget the name of the court case which set the precedent). Suddenly, we’ve set up a system that a corporation (see monopoly) can own as much as they want and can exist as long as they want (originally, the idea of a corporation was set for a limited time only and then dissolved after their business transaction was done). Therefore, in the private, global market the rich, corporations have a huge advantage over everyone else. We will come back to this concept later on and show that they in fact have even a bigger advantage due to the nature of capitalism.
Coming Soon: Part 2: Money, Money, Money - Motivation By Greed
Capitalism is an economic system where things (property, for example) are owned by people or an individual, not by a government or communities, and where people have to barter or work for money, so they can buy things they need or want, such as food. (stolen from the Simple Wikipedia, because I wanted something different from what you have).
I will start out by responding to your points, and then add more later if clarification is necessary. I would add that I'm fairly busy today but later tonight I can get more done.
Privatization is not a necessary element, private ownership is. Using "privatization" makes it seem as though the natural owned state of a thing(s) is collective. It is not. Returning something to private hands - what I would call privatization, as in utilities or airlines maybe - first requires that that thing be taken from - or given by - the private owner.
Why does everyone need an equal chance to purchase and own? Do you mean this for anything? As in every person needs to have an "equal chance" to buy a sandwich, or a house, or an ounce of gold, or a McDonald's franchise? Without said equal chance, there is something wrong?
Further, your point here seems to suggest that it is immoral for one person to have more than another person. ("We can already see how just from this basic point, those with the means are already well ahead of the game versus those who start out with much less.") This is most certainly not the case, and if your entire argument is going to rest on this as a foundation, perhaps we need to stop progressing the conversation and look at why wealth accumulation is not immoral.
The idea of a corporation as a legal entity is not established by capitalism, but by the State. I'm not going to tell you that corporatism is a good idea. But to the extent that a group of persons with a similar goal can hold joint ownership in a company, then what could be wrong with that? If the corporation cannot has no more power than an individual, again, what is the problem? There should be no difference between what is permitted of John Deere corporation (assets $55 Billion, shared among the private owners of the stock) and Warren Buffet (individual, assets $58 Billion). Again though, if you want to discuss the legitimacy of the State, that is a different discussion than that of whether capitalism is moral (most moral!) or not.
just to be clear, i didn't mention anything about who should be boycotting, but i'm assuming we're talking about the people watching (because i'd imagine that if all the athletes boycotted and the olympics didn't happen, you'd agree that that was a message well sent).
Not at all . . . it just means that the Jamaican bobsled team will win gold, and some Azerbaijani doofus will medal in Super G.
i find it really difficult to agree with you. do you really think that if the millions of people at home all decided not to watch the olympics at all and/or all the fans chose not to pay for tickets to go watch live that that wouldn't send a message? that would be huge, huge revenue losses for tons of people and businesses (and not just in russia). i find it very difficult to see how this is equal to clicking 'like' on a facebook page, but i'm still open to more explanation.
Urm, the TV ratings are irrelevant for the CURRENT games as the ad slots are already bought and paid for. FUTURE Games would suffer, but why would Putin give a damn about them? As for tickets, pretty much the same thing. Not a lot of "walk-up" tickets to be sold for the Marquee events, and those events will have required prepurchase, too.
Privatization is not a necessary element, private ownership is. Using "privatization" makes it seem as though the natural owned state of a thing(s) is collective. It is not. Returning something to private hands - what I would call privatization, as in utilities or airlines maybe - first requires that that thing be taken from - or given by - the private owner.
(see bolded). wait, wait, wait! this needs a lot more clarification (as we have a fundamental difference of opinion here). so the natural state of thing(s) is private ownership? not sure i agree with this as obviously everything wasn't always privately owned (naturally or otherwise) before the industrial revolution and capitalism. there are ample civilizations throughout history that practiced collective ownership. privatization or private property (not personal property, that's different) was and is necessary for capitalism.
Why does everyone need an equal chance to purchase and own? Do you mean this for anything? As in every person needs to have an "equal chance" to buy a sandwich, or a house, or an ounce of gold, or a McDonald's franchise? Without said equal chance, there is something wrong?
i knew that this point would come up because i couldn't (i.e. i chose not to) write a huge post. i completely agree that this 'lack of equality' argument by itself is not a strong enough argument to suggest immorality. i tried to safeguard this in my last sentence when i said we'd come back to this point and show that it's even worse than "not equal". not sure if i should get into it here but basically i was going to outline the walmart example. i think i'll hold off for now though as i think it'll make more sense later.
Further, your point here seems to suggest that it is immoral for one person to have more than another person. ("We can already see how just from this basic point, those with the means are already well ahead of the game versus those who start out with much less.") This is most certainly not the case, and if your entire argument is going to rest on this as a foundation, perhaps we need to stop progressing the conversation and look at why wealth accumulation is not immoral.
see above. and no, equality does not equal morality (but i understand that it did seem like i was suggesting that). however, i am suggesting that the access and ability to achieve (at least somewhat relative) equality should be possible (it arguably is according to capitalists), yet i strongly feel that that is a myth of capitalism. again, i will be coming back to this overall point later.
The idea of a corporation as a legal entity is not established by capitalism, but by the State.
that is true, but irrelevant. why does it matter who established it? (keep in mind that corporations were established by the state in response to capitalism.) corporations are still allowed to run amok and take huge advantage over everyone else since they are considered equals under the law. well, equal to a point as we will see because corporations can't go to jail, for example.
I'm not going to tell you that corporatism is a good idea. But to the extent that a group of persons with a similar goal can hold joint ownership in a company, then what could be wrong with that?
corporatism for a limited amount of time and under a limited scope of expansion is absolutely fine. monopolies? not so much. i can (and probably will) get into this as well.
If the corporation cannot has no more power than an individual, again, what is the problem? There should be no difference between what is permitted of John Deere corporation (assets $55 Billion, shared among the private owners of the stock) and Warren Buffet (individual, assets $58 Billion).
it is my contention that corporations do indeed have much more power than the individual. huge amounts more in fact legally and resource-wise.
Again though, if you want to discuss the legitimacy of the State, that is a different discussion than that of whether capitalism is moral (most moral!) or not.
again, we might be disagreeing on a fundamental basis. capitalism is a state sanctioned economic system, so i fail to understand how we are expected to separate the two, especially in respect to its overarching moral implications. if we're not considering the state and the citizens and the moral implications that capitalism holds over them, they what are we talking about?
The second aspect to consider is the motive of capitalism: profit. That’s it, the bottom line - money for the business owners and money for the shareholders. It is illegal for a corporation to anonymously donate money to charity – I have to repeat this – it is illegal for corporations to do this. The only way they can donate to charity is as an advertising campaign (i.e. with the goal to ultimately make them more money). I really can’t stress this point enough – it is against the law for all corporations to do anything charitable if their ultimate aim is solely to be charitable!
A great example of the motivation for profit over everything else can be seen in reference to the (somewhat) recent changes by the government to limit greenhouse gases from factories and manufacturing plants. If a business passes the designated limit (i.e. the limit that the government has put into place to protect its citizens from harmful pollution!), the business is fined a set amount. That it is a set amount is important because the business is not being punished for polluting tons more than they were regulated! The business then considers the amount of money it would cost to obey the regulations compared to how much the fine costs. If the fine costs less, the business continues polluting. There is absolutely zero regard and consideration to what is morally or ethically valuable towards society and humanity! It is purely a ‘by the numbers’ decision.
stay tuned for Part 3 (i haven't decided exactly on the topic yet but it'll be either market competition or monopolies)
again, we might be disagreeing on a fundamental basis. capitalism is a state sanctioned economic system, so i fail to understand how we are expected to separate the two, especially in respect to its overarching moral implications. if we're not considering the state and the citizens and the moral implications that capitalism holds over them, they what are we talking about?
Well, to an extent it seems we are disagreeing here. Capitalism isn't exactly a state sanctioned economic system, it doesn't need a State to exist. See your own definition for this - the state need not be involved at all. Indeed, I would say that capitalism is the natural economic state of man before there is intervention by the state. All other "-isms", are basically defined by how they differ from the free market; what additional laws/regulations are imposed in order to try and get the desired end state.
As a result, there are very few (if any) economies operating fully under capitalism in the present day. At best they can be described as mixed economies. Canada and the United States may be more capitalist than, say, Sweden and France, but they are still not truly free market systems.
I would say we are talking about how an unrestrained free market ('capitalism') is a more moral system than all others.
Maybe you need to redefine/clarify what you mean by Capitalism?
(see bolded). wait, wait, wait! this needs a lot more clarification (as we have a fundamental difference of opinion here). so the natural state of thing(s) is private ownership? not sure i agree with this as obviously everything wasn't always privately owned (naturally or otherwise) before the industrial revolution and capitalism. there are ample civilizations throughout history that practiced collective ownership. privatization or private property (not personal property, that's different) was and is necessary for capitalism.
Though apparently the first ever use of the word 'Capitalist' was 1781, the system has existed since...always.
Also, please explain how you are differentiating between personal property and private property?
The second aspect to consider is the motive of capitalism: profit. That’s it, the bottom line - money for the business owners and money for the shareholders.
Profit is amoral.
Businesses exist to make profit. If there were no possibility of profit, a business would not exist.
The profit/loss system of capitalism is the both the most efficient and the most moral way that goods and services can be allocated. It best ensures that a good is available for those who need it most, and (importantly to our main topic of morality) requires no force/threat thereof to be initiated against an unwilling party.
...
You continue to rail against corporations as if they were synonymous with capitalism, when they are not. Capitalism would exist without corporations, and corporations can and do exist in very anti-capitalist systems.
(see bolded). wait, wait, wait! this needs a lot more clarification (as we have a fundamental difference of opinion here). so the natural state of thing(s) is private ownership? not sure i agree with this as obviously everything wasn't always privately owned (naturally or otherwise) before the industrial revolution and capitalism. there are ample civilizations throughout history that practiced collective ownership. privatization or private property (not personal property, that's different) was and is necessary for capitalism.
Really?!? I think you are splitting the thinnest of hairs.
i knew that this point would come up because i couldn't (i.e. i chose not to) write a huge post. i completely agree that this 'lack of equality' argument by itself is not a strong enough argument to suggest immorality. i tried to safeguard this in my last sentence when i said we'd come back to this point and show that it's even worse than "not equal". not sure if i should get into it here but basically i was going to outline the walmart example. i think i'll hold off for now though as i think it'll make more sense later.
see above. and no, equality does not equal morality (but i understand that it did seem like i was suggesting that). however, i am suggesting that the access and ability to achieve (at least somewhat relative) equality should be possible (it arguably is according to capitalists), yet i strongly feel that that is a myth of capitalism. again, i will be coming back to this overall point later.
Good, because Bill Gates, and a slew of others would disagree with you about this "myth" . . .
that is true, but irrelevant. why does it matter who established it?
It matters a great deal. If the dictionary defines a term as "x", but the government tells you that it actually means "y", who you going to believe?
(keep in mind that corporations were established by the state (and here I thought it was Henry Ford that started the blue oval) in response to capitalism.) corporations are still allowed to run amok and take huge advantage over everyone else since they are considered equals under the law. well, equal to a point as we will see because corporations can't go to jail, for example.
corporatism for a limited amount of time and under a limited scope of expansion is absolutely fine. monopolies? not so much. i can (and probably will) get into this as well.
it is my contention that corporations do indeed have much more power than the individual. huge amounts more in fact legally and resource-wise.
again, we might be disagreeing on a fundamental basis. capitalism is a state sanctioned economic system, so i fail to understand how we are expected to separate the two, especially in respect to its overarching moral implications. if we're not considering the state and the citizens and the moral implications that capitalism holds over them, they what are we talking about?
Indeed, I would say that capitalism is the natural economic state of man before there is intervention by the state.
proof or evidence? or is this just an opinion? obviously, as i mentioned, i disagree.
what additional laws/regulations are imposed in order to try and get the desired end state.
(if i understand your correctly) none, that's my point. capitalism alone is immoral and it requires additional laws.
As a result, there are very few (if any) economies operating fully under capitalism in the present day. At best they can be described as mixed economies. Canada and the United States may be more capitalist than, say, Sweden and France, but they are still not truly free market systems.
agreed, but i'm assuming we're kind of ignoring this overall point.
I would say we are talking about how an unrestrained free market ('capitalism') is a more moral system than all others.
Maybe you need to redefine/clarify what you mean by Capitalism?
you are correct. there are multiple forms of capitalism. again, i was assuming we were (trying to) discuss in general, but i guess that's where are issues are arising.
Also, please explain how you are differentiating between personal property and private property?
here's wiki, because i'm lazy:
Private property is the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[1][...]Private property is further distinguished from personal property, which refers to property for personal use and consumption.
Profit is amoral.
Businesses exist to make profit. If there were no possibility of profit, a business would not exist.
you keep just making statements like this without evidence or proof. i disagree with the first part and i referenced an example.
as far as the second part goes, i disagree as well. businesses could function without monetary profit. for example, they could all work on a bartering/borrowing system. (i'm not saying that's a good idea, but it's easy to think of businesses functioning without the goal of profit).
The profit/loss system of capitalism is the both the most efficient and the most moral way that goods and services can be allocated. It best ensures that a good is available for those who need it most, and (importantly to our main topic of morality) requires no force/threat thereof to be initiated against an unwilling party.
again, you are saying this but offering no evidence. goods and services are allocated horribly and in no way are they efficient and moral! like i mentioned previously, i haven't gotten to this point yet (i'll make more mention of it when i discuss the means of production).
however, since this is getting (slightly) out of hand as far as explaining my point and staying cohesive, simply put, when a business owns the manufacturing side and the commercial side (i.e. they own everything -see monopolies), they have the power to pretty much do whatever they want (and they legally can't act morally good). again, very quick gloss over here.
You continue to rail against corporations as if they were synonymous with capitalism, when they are not. Capitalism would exist without corporations, and corporations can and do exist in very anti-capitalist systems.
i am speaking about capitalism. i am just using the example of how corporations are allowed to function within capitalism. i have to cite some example, don't i? why am i not allowed to use the example that best (or imo worst) represents the villainy of capitalism.
yes, corporations can exist outside of capitalism obviously, but capitalism allows corporations to be the worst they can possible be.
again, how can i discuss the evils of capitalism when i'm not allowed to use examples of the entities functioning within capitalism? i need to talk about something specific here and there.
you keep just making statements like this without evidence or proof. i disagree with the first part and i referenced an example.
as far as the second part goes, i disagree as well. businesses could function without monetary profit. for example, they could all work on a bartering/borrowing system. (i'm not saying that's a good idea, but it's easy to think of businesses functioning without the goal of profit).
If I'm not mistaken, you were the first to bring up "businesses exist only to make a profit" as a negative, without offering any proof/evidence to uphold your assertion that profit is, in fact, a negative thing. Perhaps you will get to why in a later post. I would assume that the burden of proof is on you for that - but you're the philosophy guy so feel free to tell me why I'm wrong
Businesses that exist with no intent to make a monetary profit are called charities. Businesses that exist that make no profit are called bad ones.
again, how can i discuss the evils of capitalism when i'm not allowed to use examples of the entities functioning within capitalism? i need to talk about something specific here and there.
You could focus on the actual mechanics of capitalism - again as per your definition: “an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profit in a market economy. Central characteristics include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and wage labor”.
You could tell me which of these attributes of capitalism are immoral (then I'll tell you why I think otherwise). I realize you are in the process of doing so.
As it stands it's sort of (to me) like you're making an argument for Prohibition by focusing on alcoholics who beat their wives. They exist, and what they do is immoral, but a)by itself that's not a good argument and b) the alternative is worse.
proof or evidence? or is this just an opinion? obviously, as i mentioned, i disagree.
I would like to hear what you think the natural state of man before the State would be called, economically.
My evidence or opinion or whatever, which also speaks to why profit is not immoral:
Because to improve ourselves via trade has always been a part of what humans do. Was there always a wage labor system or money (as we have it today) available? No, of course not.
But humans have always traded (or bartered or whatever). Whenever people trade, they do so in their own self-interest. If a person did not consider themselves better off after making a trade, why would they do so at all? If they are trading property that they have ownership to (personal/private) then how is this not the roots of capitalism? Over time, some people who were more skilled at trading would accumulate more wealth (perhaps larger herds or better quality stock, or simply more skills with which to do more trading), while others would have less and would perhaps make the trade of their labor (as shepherds for example) in exchange for food/shelter.
Note that some people (within families or tribes or whatever) might not have operated this way in the strictest sense. But when they came in contact with other groups, they surely did.
Let us think of an imaginary society, consisting of 10,000 citizens. For illustration purposes, these persons have $100 in savings. All their expenses and income otherwise cancel out, they run a balanced budget.
Now suppose that one of the citizens has an idea. He takes some of his savings and purchases a whittling knife and a saw. He takes another portion of his savings and purchases a large log. He then begins to fashion small sculptures from the wood. Over time he becomes very skilled. He purchases more large logs and begins to produce many sculptures.
He puts them up for sale at $1 each. They are so good that eventually everyone in the society has bought one. The sculptor now has $9,999 he did not previously have. This, less expenses, is his profit. Everyone else has one dollar less in their account, but instead has an item that they value at more than one dollar (or equal to). So they have profited too.
This story, where everyone is happy with the outcome, does not prove profit is moral. But unless you can show me something immoral that occurred, it does prove that profit is not immoral.
People can do immoral things to earn profit, but it's the actions that are immoral - not the profit itself.
Let us think of an imaginary society, consisting of 10,000 citizens. For illustration purposes, these persons have $100 in savings. All their expenses and income otherwise cancel out, they run a balanced budget.
Now suppose that one of the citizens has an idea. He takes some of his savings and purchases a whittling knife and a saw. He takes another portion of his savings and purchases a large log. He then begins to fashion small sculptures from the wood. Over time he becomes very skilled. He purchases more large logs and begins to produce many sculptures.
He puts them up for sale at $1 each. They are so good that eventually everyone in the society has bought one. The sculptor now has $9,999 he did not previously have. This, less expenses, is his profit. Everyone else has one dollar less in their account, but instead has an item that they value at more than one dollar (or equal to). So they have profited too.
This story, where everyone is happy with the outcome, does not prove profit is moral. But unless you can show me something immoral that occurred, it does prove that profit is not immoral.
People can do immoral things to earn profit, but it's the actions that are immoral - not the profit itself.
i have to show that this specific example is immoral? why? i never said that every transaction within capitalism is immoral. obviously we can think of examples like this. on the other hand, i've already came up with an example in this regard. i mentioned the polluting by manufacturing. insert every company that is polluting the environment as we speak in order to make profit.
i really think we're just arguing in circles here. i will try to put my whole argument in very basic premises just so you can see it in its entirety. maybe that will help. i might not get to it today though.
btw, this is awesome Big Mike. thanks a lot for caring and participating this much. you too Milo.
EDIT: i think i may have just come up with a great idea and a different perspective for this argument. i'll try to get it posted soon.
i have to show that this specific example is immoral? why? i never said that every transaction within capitalism is immoral. obviously we can think of examples like this. on the other hand, i've already came up with an example in this regard. i mentioned the polluting by manufacturing. insert every company that is polluting the environment as we speak in order to make profit.
You certainly do not have to show that this specific example is immoral (indeed, I don't think it's possible without a serious redefinition of morality).
But Profit (and Loss) is a key component of capitalism, perhaps the most important one. In previous posts you have said or strongly implied that profit is immoral. My example given was to show that that premise is flawed.
You can cite come up with every example in the world, but they are all of immoral actions, and do not logically prove that profit is immoral.
You can show me a thousand chickens to try and prove all birds are chickens, but I need only show one robin to prove it untrue. (I wanted to use an A=B kind of thing there but I never took Logic so I couldn't. I assume you did take Logic at some point so you understand me completely)
If profit itself is not immoral, then where does capitalism begin to become immoral?
okay, same debate but from a different perspective:
Why capitalism is evil according to the three big ethical theories:
First, Kant’s categorical imperative (2nd formulation) states that it is immoral for someone to use someone else merely as a means to an end (mostly because it violates one’s autonomy). Capitalism necessarily uses everyone and everything as a means to an end since they use everything to solely gain profit.
Second, Aristotle’s virtue ethics argues that we must be making decisions that produce, provide and espouse the most and best possible virtues. Capitalism only encourages the accumulation of wealth to the extreme and this violates the principle of moderation. Furthermore, capitalism wasn’t created for human happiness; it was created for economic growth only. The fact that its end goal is not for human happiness violates the necessary end-goal of virtue ethics.
Third, consequentialism argues for producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people as far as the consequences are concerned. Capitalism encourages an unsustainable growth rate, actually an infinite growth rate which is obviously an impossible consequence to expect. Capitalism also works to benefit the few and actually decreases the happiness for the majority in that it is only promoting the profit (for those who own the means of production) while the proletariat continues to receive wages that decrease and cannot adequately sustain them (see the argument that the worker can’t afford to buy the items they make/sell). Finally, capitalism sees human behaviour only under the terms of punishment and reward. A society built on this type of human behaviour model is just more likely to continue increasing unhappiness as we surround ourselves in a social atmosphere that creates these ideals.
So, as we can see, capitalism is definitely immoral in regard to the big 3 ethical theories. (Wow that was a lot easier and a lot better perspective to make my point. I should have stuck to the philosophy to begin with lol).
i really think we're just arguing in circles here. i will try to put my whole argument in very basic premises just so you can see it in its entirety. maybe that will help. i might not get to it today though.
Circles? Maybe. I will put my argument as basic a form as I can too. Skip ahead to the next quote if you want to formulate your argument independently of responding to mine:
........
Initiating violence or the threat of violence is wrong (immoral).
Capitalism does not require this in order to exist. All other economic systems do. Therefore capitalism is the most moral while other systems are (to varying degrees) immoral.
Individuals or corporations can do other immoral things within any economic system. The profit/loss system of capitalism provides the best framework to minimize these actions.
.....
btw, this is awesome Big Mike. thanks a lot for caring and participating this much. you too Milo
.
You are welcome, it is my pleasure. Thanks very much also.
EDIT: i think i may have just come up with a great idea and a different perspective for this argument. i'll try to get it posted soon.
Why capitalism is evil according to the three big ethical theories:
First, Kant’s categorical imperative (2nd formulation) states that it is immoral for someone to use someone else merely as a means to an end (mostly because it violates one’s autonomy). Capitalism necessarily uses everyone and everything as a means to an end since they use everything to solely gain profit.
Exploitation of the workers? Well, if they have agreed to work for the wages on offer, they are no longer being exploited are they? Rather they have entered into a mutually beneficial contract. The Employer gets labour, and the employees earn income. should they ever feel they are no longer being compensated adequately, they can quit (or renegotiate).
Second, Aristotle’s virtue ethics argues that we must be making decisions that produce, provide and espouse the most and best possible virtues. Capitalism only encourages the accumulation of wealth to the extreme and this violates the principle of moderation. Furthermore, capitalism wasn’t created for human happiness; it was created for economic growth only. The fact that its end goal is not for human happiness violates the necessary end-goal of virtue ethics.
Capitalists who develop AIDS medications make profits, and I am reasonably certain those who take them are happier for it. The incentive of "accumulation" is not necessarily a negative. As Gordon Gecko said . . . "Greed, for lack of a better term . . . is good."
Third, consequentialism argues for producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people as far as the consequences are concerned. Capitalism encourages an unsustainable growth rate, actually an infinite growth rate which is obviously an impossible consequence to expect. Capitalism also works to benefit the few and actually decreases the happiness for the majority in that it is only promoting the profit (for those who own the means of production) while the proletariat continues to receive wages that decrease and cannot adequately sustain them (see the argument that the worker can’t afford to buy the items they make/sell). Finally, capitalism sees human behaviour only under the terms of punishment and reward. A society built on this type of human behaviour model is just more likely to continue increasing unhappiness as we surround ourselves in a social atmosphere that creates these ideals.
But the proletariat, through investment of their wages, can acquire sufficient ownership shares of those means of production to live quite comfortable and happy lives.
So, as we can see, capitalism is definitely immoral in regard to the big 3 ethical theories. (Wow that was a lot easier and a lot better perspective to make my point. I should have stuck to the philosophy to begin with lol).
okay, same debate but from a different perspective:
Why capitalism is evil according to the three big ethical theories:
First, Kant’s categorical imperative (2nd formulation) states that it is immoral for someone to use someone else merely as a means to an end (mostly because it violates one’s autonomy). Capitalism necessarily uses everyone and everything as a means to an end since they use everything to solely gain profit.
I guess that for this one I have to plead some kind of ignorance because I don't see how this violates someone's autonomy as long as they have free choice. If McDonald's is using Shaun the cashier only to make profit by making money (as it did in '93-96), how is my autonomy violated? And am I not using McDonald's only as a means to an end (to profit - get money and job experience?) The customer is using me and McDonald's only as a means to an end (to profit -get food)? So we're all evil? Is Kant's point that restaurants are evil? What?!?
Second, Aristotle’s virtue ethics argues that we must be making decisions that produce, provide and espouse the most and best possible virtues. Capitalism only encourages the accumulation of wealth to the extreme and this violates the principle of moderation. Furthermore, capitalism wasn’t created for human happiness; it was created for economic growth only. The fact that its end goal is not for human happiness violates the necessary end-goal of virtue ethics.
Ok, so if capitalism was created, who created it?
Capitalism doesn't encourage anything. It allows people to accumulate wealth in the extreme. It also allows people to accumulate wealth and give it away. Or to never accumulate wealth, but spend it all as they earn it. Perhaps at McDonald's.
And how does this person/corporation go about amassing all this wealth? By making people happy. Not necessarily in the smiliing/ laughing sense, but by meeting their needs and making them better off than they were previously - as they see it.
I don't know if you've got kids, but I do. We went to McDonald's yesterday. My kids were happy about it. I wasn't as 'happy', but nevertheless I exchanged $20 for the food. If I didn't think I would be better off after having done so, I wouldn't have made that trade.That is the very essence of capitalism. Capitalism allows individuals to make the choices about what makes them happy or not. The worker who served me the food didn't seem particularly happy. But she was happier (or realized that she would be so) than if she just didn't show up to work and got fired/ quit.
The day that McDonald's stops making enough people happy, they will go out of business. How could they know just when that day comes? The day profits become losses, that's when. Again for emphasis: Profits come when a person or company makes someone happy/meets their needs/pleases them. Losses come when they don't.
Third, consequentialism argues for producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people as far as the consequences are concerned. Capitalism encourages an unsustainable growth rate, actually an infinite growth rate which is obviously an impossible consequence to expect. Capitalism also works to benefit the few and actually decreases the happiness for the majority in that it is only promoting the profit (for those who own the means of production) while the proletariat continues to receive wages that decrease and cannot adequately sustain them (see the argument that the worker can’t afford to buy the items they make/sell).
What do you mean by infinite growth rate? I think you are in error here but I need to know exactly what you mean by that statement. Ever expanding progress is not impossible, because wealth is not finite but can be created; I'm not sure that's what you mean.
Capitalism does not benefit just the few, it benefits all. Doesn't the McDonald's employee benefit by having a job? I sure thought so when I was a teenager. Did I make as much money as the CEO (or did we both make an equal salary, which I somehow think you feel would be more moral)? No, of course not. He (she?) had far more skills that he could put to use to make people happy than I could. He could do my job (probably did at one point) but I could not do his (still can't). This means his skills are in much higher demand relative to supply and as a result he got paid a lot, lot, more.
The proletariat (can I just say that I love that we're having a conversation that can include the word proletariat) does indeed receive wages that decrease, but this is the fault of inflation, not of capitalism. (If you think inflation is caused by capitalism - it's not. I can explain why if you'd like later on.)
Finally, capitalism sees human behaviour only under the terms of punishment and reward. A society built on this type of human behaviour model is just more likely to continue increasing unhappiness as we surround ourselves in a social atmosphere that creates these ideals.
Profit and loss isn't exactly reward and punishment (because not getting a reward isn't the same as getting punished). I guess I don't have much of a response to this except to say that we're not increasing in unhappiness (if we even are?) because of capitalism. Even if we were in a fully capitalist system, correlation is not causation.
So, as we can see, capitalism is definitely immoral in regard to the big 3 ethical theories. (Wow that was a lot easier and a lot better perspective to make my point. I should have stuck to the philosophy to begin with lol).
Well, now I see why you think it's immoral, so you've accomplished that much.
Comments
Part 1: The Curse of Privatization
Capitalism is “an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profit in a market economy. Central characteristics include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and wage labor” (wiki definition because I couldn’t phrase it better). We will analyze these characteristics (and some others) in more detail and consider whether they are actually a benefit to humanity or not.
First aspect to consider is privatization. As we can see in the definition above, this is a necessary element of capitalism. The concept of privatization in itself is not a bad thing as long as everyone has an equal chance in the purchasing and owning. As individuals, if we don’t have this equal chance, then right off the bat capitalism is favouring those who have better resources (see money). So yes, anyone can purchase products, items, space, etc. in the open market if and only if they have the means to do so (and those who have more means aren’t willing to outbid them). We can already see how just from this basic point, those with the means are already well ahead of the game versus those who start out with much less.
Now add to this the fact that corporations have been given the same rights as the individual (I think it’s referred to as corporate personhood or something like that, and it’s written into law ffs! i forget the name of the court case which set the precedent). Suddenly, we’ve set up a system that a corporation (see monopoly) can own as much as they want and can exist as long as they want (originally, the idea of a corporation was set for a limited time only and then dissolved after their business transaction was done). Therefore, in the private, global market the rich, corporations have a huge advantage over everyone else. We will come back to this concept later on and show that they in fact have even a bigger advantage due to the nature of capitalism.
Coming Soon: Part 2: Money, Money, Money - Motivation By Greed
My educational Background:
1983-91: Caroline M. Thompson/McKay Elementary Schools (Graduate)
1991-96: Centennial Secondary School (Graduate)
1996-99: Emmanuel Bible College (Dropout)
As you can see, you have little to fear due to my education
Capitalism is an economic system where things (property, for example) are owned by people or an individual, not by a government or communities, and where people have to barter or work for money, so they can buy things they need or want, such as food. (stolen from the Simple Wikipedia, because I wanted something different from what you have).
I will start out by responding to your points, and then add more later if clarification is necessary. I would add that I'm fairly busy today but later tonight I can get more done.
Privatization is not a necessary element, private ownership is. Using "privatization" makes it seem as though the natural owned state of a thing(s) is collective. It is not. Returning something to private hands - what I would call privatization, as in utilities or airlines maybe - first requires that that thing be taken from - or given by - the private owner.
Why does everyone need an equal chance to purchase and own? Do you mean this for anything? As in every person needs to have an "equal chance" to buy a sandwich, or a house, or an ounce of gold, or a McDonald's franchise? Without said equal chance, there is something wrong?
Further, your point here seems to suggest that it is immoral for one person to have more than another person. ("We can already see how just from this basic point, those with the means are already well ahead of the game versus those who start out with much less.") This is most certainly not the case, and if your entire argument is going to rest on this as a foundation, perhaps we need to stop progressing the conversation and look at why wealth accumulation is not immoral.
The idea of a corporation as a legal entity is not established by capitalism, but by the State. I'm not going to tell you that corporatism is a good idea. But to the extent that a group of persons with a similar goal can hold joint ownership in a company, then what could be wrong with that? If the corporation cannot has no more power than an individual, again, what is the problem? There should be no difference between what is permitted of John Deere corporation (assets $55 Billion, shared among the private owners of the stock) and Warren Buffet (individual, assets $58 Billion). Again though, if you want to discuss the legitimacy of the State, that is a different discussion than that of whether capitalism is moral (most moral!) or not.
Also known by it's alternate title: A Greedy Baker Means Bread for Everyone!
Looking forward to it!
Urm, the TV ratings are irrelevant for the CURRENT games as the ad slots are already bought and paid for. FUTURE Games would suffer, but why would Putin give a damn about them? As for tickets, pretty much the same thing. Not a lot of "walk-up" tickets to be sold for the Marquee events, and those events will have required prepurchase, too.
Pulls up lawn chair, sets down cooler . . . anybody got popcorn?
(see bolded). wait, wait, wait! this needs a lot more clarification (as we have a fundamental difference of opinion here). so the natural state of thing(s) is private ownership? not sure i agree with this as obviously everything wasn't always privately owned (naturally or otherwise) before the industrial revolution and capitalism. there are ample civilizations throughout history that practiced collective ownership. privatization or private property (not personal property, that's different) was and is necessary for capitalism.
i knew that this point would come up because i couldn't (i.e. i chose not to) write a huge post. i completely agree that this 'lack of equality' argument by itself is not a strong enough argument to suggest immorality. i tried to safeguard this in my last sentence when i said we'd come back to this point and show that it's even worse than "not equal". not sure if i should get into it here but basically i was going to outline the walmart example. i think i'll hold off for now though as i think it'll make more sense later.
see above. and no, equality does not equal morality (but i understand that it did seem like i was suggesting that). however, i am suggesting that the access and ability to achieve (at least somewhat relative) equality should be possible (it arguably is according to capitalists), yet i strongly feel that that is a myth of capitalism. again, i will be coming back to this overall point later.
that is true, but irrelevant. why does it matter who established it? (keep in mind that corporations were established by the state in response to capitalism.) corporations are still allowed to run amok and take huge advantage over everyone else since they are considered equals under the law. well, equal to a point as we will see because corporations can't go to jail, for example.
corporatism for a limited amount of time and under a limited scope of expansion is absolutely fine. monopolies? not so much. i can (and probably will) get into this as well.
it is my contention that corporations do indeed have much more power than the individual. huge amounts more in fact legally and resource-wise.
again, we might be disagreeing on a fundamental basis. capitalism is a state sanctioned economic system, so i fail to understand how we are expected to separate the two, especially in respect to its overarching moral implications. if we're not considering the state and the citizens and the moral implications that capitalism holds over them, they what are we talking about?
The second aspect to consider is the motive of capitalism: profit. That’s it, the bottom line - money for the business owners and money for the shareholders. It is illegal for a corporation to anonymously donate money to charity – I have to repeat this – it is illegal for corporations to do this. The only way they can donate to charity is as an advertising campaign (i.e. with the goal to ultimately make them more money). I really can’t stress this point enough – it is against the law for all corporations to do anything charitable if their ultimate aim is solely to be charitable!
A great example of the motivation for profit over everything else can be seen in reference to the (somewhat) recent changes by the government to limit greenhouse gases from factories and manufacturing plants. If a business passes the designated limit (i.e. the limit that the government has put into place to protect its citizens from harmful pollution!), the business is fined a set amount. That it is a set amount is important because the business is not being punished for polluting tons more than they were regulated! The business then considers the amount of money it would cost to obey the regulations compared to how much the fine costs. If the fine costs less, the business continues polluting. There is absolutely zero regard and consideration to what is morally or ethically valuable towards society and humanity! It is purely a ‘by the numbers’ decision.
stay tuned for Part 3 (i haven't decided exactly on the topic yet but it'll be either market competition or monopolies)
Well, to an extent it seems we are disagreeing here. Capitalism isn't exactly a state sanctioned economic system, it doesn't need a State to exist. See your own definition for this - the state need not be involved at all. Indeed, I would say that capitalism is the natural economic state of man before there is intervention by the state. All other "-isms", are basically defined by how they differ from the free market; what additional laws/regulations are imposed in order to try and get the desired end state.
As a result, there are very few (if any) economies operating fully under capitalism in the present day. At best they can be described as mixed economies. Canada and the United States may be more capitalist than, say, Sweden and France, but they are still not truly free market systems.
I would say we are talking about how an unrestrained free market ('capitalism') is a more moral system than all others.
Maybe you need to redefine/clarify what you mean by Capitalism?
Though apparently the first ever use of the word 'Capitalist' was 1781, the system has existed since...always.
Also, please explain how you are differentiating between personal property and private property?
Profit is amoral.
Businesses exist to make profit. If there were no possibility of profit, a business would not exist.
The profit/loss system of capitalism is the both the most efficient and the most moral way that goods and services can be allocated. It best ensures that a good is available for those who need it most, and (importantly to our main topic of morality) requires no force/threat thereof to be initiated against an unwilling party.
...
You continue to rail against corporations as if they were synonymous with capitalism, when they are not. Capitalism would exist without corporations, and corporations can and do exist in very anti-capitalist systems.
And I keep thinking of this:
A couple of thoughts in bold.
proof or evidence? or is this just an opinion? obviously, as i mentioned, i disagree.
(if i understand your correctly) none, that's my point. capitalism alone is immoral and it requires additional laws.
agreed, but i'm assuming we're kind of ignoring this overall point.
you are correct. there are multiple forms of capitalism. again, i was assuming we were (trying to) discuss in general, but i guess that's where are issues are arising.
here's wiki, because i'm lazy:
Private property is the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[1][...]Private property is further distinguished from personal property, which refers to property for personal use and consumption.
you keep just making statements like this without evidence or proof. i disagree with the first part and i referenced an example.
as far as the second part goes, i disagree as well. businesses could function without monetary profit. for example, they could all work on a bartering/borrowing system. (i'm not saying that's a good idea, but it's easy to think of businesses functioning without the goal of profit).
again, you are saying this but offering no evidence. goods and services are allocated horribly and in no way are they efficient and moral! like i mentioned previously, i haven't gotten to this point yet (i'll make more mention of it when i discuss the means of production).
however, since this is getting (slightly) out of hand as far as explaining my point and staying cohesive, simply put, when a business owns the manufacturing side and the commercial side (i.e. they own everything -see monopolies), they have the power to pretty much do whatever they want (and they legally can't act morally good). again, very quick gloss over here.
i am speaking about capitalism. i am just using the example of how corporations are allowed to function within capitalism. i have to cite some example, don't i? why am i not allowed to use the example that best (or imo worst) represents the villainy of capitalism.
yes, corporations can exist outside of capitalism obviously, but capitalism allows corporations to be the worst they can possible be.
again, how can i discuss the evils of capitalism when i'm not allowed to use examples of the entities functioning within capitalism? i need to talk about something specific here and there.
milo, i think you are misunderstanding here. this is not what i said at all. i am not changing definitions nor suggesting a different definition.
If I'm not mistaken, you were the first to bring up "businesses exist only to make a profit" as a negative, without offering any proof/evidence to uphold your assertion that profit is, in fact, a negative thing. Perhaps you will get to why in a later post. I would assume that the burden of proof is on you for that - but you're the philosophy guy so feel free to tell me why I'm wrong
Businesses that exist with no intent to make a monetary profit are called charities. Businesses that exist that make no profit are called bad ones.
You could focus on the actual mechanics of capitalism - again as per your definition: “an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profit in a market economy. Central characteristics include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and wage labor”.
You could tell me which of these attributes of capitalism are immoral (then I'll tell you why I think otherwise). I realize you are in the process of doing so.
As it stands it's sort of (to me) like you're making an argument for Prohibition by focusing on alcoholics who beat their wives. They exist, and what they do is immoral, but a)by itself that's not a good argument and b) the alternative is worse.
I would like to hear what you think the natural state of man before the State would be called, economically.
My evidence or opinion or whatever, which also speaks to why profit is not immoral:
Because to improve ourselves via trade has always been a part of what humans do. Was there always a wage labor system or money (as we have it today) available? No, of course not.
But humans have always traded (or bartered or whatever). Whenever people trade, they do so in their own self-interest. If a person did not consider themselves better off after making a trade, why would they do so at all? If they are trading property that they have ownership to (personal/private) then how is this not the roots of capitalism? Over time, some people who were more skilled at trading would accumulate more wealth (perhaps larger herds or better quality stock, or simply more skills with which to do more trading), while others would have less and would perhaps make the trade of their labor (as shepherds for example) in exchange for food/shelter.
Note that some people (within families or tribes or whatever) might not have operated this way in the strictest sense. But when they came in contact with other groups, they surely did.
Let us think of an imaginary society, consisting of 10,000 citizens. For illustration purposes, these persons have $100 in savings. All their expenses and income otherwise cancel out, they run a balanced budget.
Now suppose that one of the citizens has an idea. He takes some of his savings and purchases a whittling knife and a saw. He takes another portion of his savings and purchases a large log. He then begins to fashion small sculptures from the wood. Over time he becomes very skilled. He purchases more large logs and begins to produce many sculptures.
He puts them up for sale at $1 each. They are so good that eventually everyone in the society has bought one. The sculptor now has $9,999 he did not previously have. This, less expenses, is his profit. Everyone else has one dollar less in their account, but instead has an item that they value at more than one dollar (or equal to). So they have profited too.
This story, where everyone is happy with the outcome, does not prove profit is moral. But unless you can show me something immoral that occurred, it does prove that profit is not immoral.
People can do immoral things to earn profit, but it's the actions that are immoral - not the profit itself.
i have to show that this specific example is immoral? why? i never said that every transaction within capitalism is immoral. obviously we can think of examples like this. on the other hand, i've already came up with an example in this regard. i mentioned the polluting by manufacturing. insert every company that is polluting the environment as we speak in order to make profit.
btw, this is awesome Big Mike. thanks a lot for caring and participating this much. you too Milo.
EDIT: i think i may have just come up with a great idea and a different perspective for this argument. i'll try to get it posted soon.
You certainly do not have to show that this specific example is immoral (indeed, I don't think it's possible without a serious redefinition of morality).
But Profit (and Loss) is a key component of capitalism, perhaps the most important one. In previous posts you have said or strongly implied that profit is immoral. My example given was to show that that premise is flawed.
You can cite come up with every example in the world, but they are all of immoral actions, and do not logically prove that profit is immoral.
You can show me a thousand chickens to try and prove all birds are chickens, but I need only show one robin to prove it untrue. (I wanted to use an A=B kind of thing there but I never took Logic so I couldn't. I assume you did take Logic at some point so you understand me completely)
If profit itself is not immoral, then where does capitalism begin to become immoral?
Why capitalism is evil according to the three big ethical theories:
First, Kant’s categorical imperative (2nd formulation) states that it is immoral for someone to use someone else merely as a means to an end (mostly because it violates one’s autonomy). Capitalism necessarily uses everyone and everything as a means to an end since they use everything to solely gain profit.
Second, Aristotle’s virtue ethics argues that we must be making decisions that produce, provide and espouse the most and best possible virtues. Capitalism only encourages the accumulation of wealth to the extreme and this violates the principle of moderation. Furthermore, capitalism wasn’t created for human happiness; it was created for economic growth only. The fact that its end goal is not for human happiness violates the necessary end-goal of virtue ethics.
Third, consequentialism argues for producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people as far as the consequences are concerned. Capitalism encourages an unsustainable growth rate, actually an infinite growth rate which is obviously an impossible consequence to expect. Capitalism also works to benefit the few and actually decreases the happiness for the majority in that it is only promoting the profit (for those who own the means of production) while the proletariat continues to receive wages that decrease and cannot adequately sustain them (see the argument that the worker can’t afford to buy the items they make/sell). Finally, capitalism sees human behaviour only under the terms of punishment and reward. A society built on this type of human behaviour model is just more likely to continue increasing unhappiness as we surround ourselves in a social atmosphere that creates these ideals.
So, as we can see, capitalism is definitely immoral in regard to the big 3 ethical theories. (Wow that was a lot easier and a lot better perspective to make my point. I should have stuck to the philosophy to begin with lol).
Circles? Maybe. I will put my argument as basic a form as I can too. Skip ahead to the next quote if you want to formulate your argument independently of responding to mine:
........
Initiating violence or the threat of violence is wrong (immoral).
Capitalism does not require this in order to exist. All other economic systems do. Therefore capitalism is the most moral while other systems are (to varying degrees) immoral.
Individuals or corporations can do other immoral things within any economic system. The profit/loss system of capitalism provides the best framework to minimize these actions.
.....
.
You are welcome, it is my pleasure. Thanks very much also.
Looking forward to it!
Sorry, but give me von Mises over Aristotle.
Sorry! I will respond later tonight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I guess that for this one I have to plead some kind of ignorance because I don't see how this violates someone's autonomy as long as they have free choice. If McDonald's is using Shaun the cashier only to make profit by making money (as it did in '93-96), how is my autonomy violated? And am I not using McDonald's only as a means to an end (to profit - get money and job experience?) The customer is using me and McDonald's only as a means to an end (to profit -get food)? So we're all evil? Is Kant's point that restaurants are evil? What?!?
Ok, so if capitalism was created, who created it?
Capitalism doesn't encourage anything. It allows people to accumulate wealth in the extreme. It also allows people to accumulate wealth and give it away. Or to never accumulate wealth, but spend it all as they earn it. Perhaps at McDonald's.
And how does this person/corporation go about amassing all this wealth? By making people happy. Not necessarily in the smiliing/ laughing sense, but by meeting their needs and making them better off than they were previously - as they see it.
I don't know if you've got kids, but I do. We went to McDonald's yesterday. My kids were happy about it. I wasn't as 'happy', but nevertheless I exchanged $20 for the food. If I didn't think I would be better off after having done so, I wouldn't have made that trade. That is the very essence of capitalism. Capitalism allows individuals to make the choices about what makes them happy or not. The worker who served me the food didn't seem particularly happy. But she was happier (or realized that she would be so) than if she just didn't show up to work and got fired/ quit.
The day that McDonald's stops making enough people happy, they will go out of business. How could they know just when that day comes? The day profits become losses, that's when. Again for emphasis: Profits come when a person or company makes someone happy/meets their needs/pleases them. Losses come when they don't.
What do you mean by infinite growth rate? I think you are in error here but I need to know exactly what you mean by that statement. Ever expanding progress is not impossible, because wealth is not finite but can be created; I'm not sure that's what you mean.
Capitalism does not benefit just the few, it benefits all. Doesn't the McDonald's employee benefit by having a job? I sure thought so when I was a teenager. Did I make as much money as the CEO (or did we both make an equal salary, which I somehow think you feel would be more moral)? No, of course not. He (she?) had far more skills that he could put to use to make people happy than I could. He could do my job (probably did at one point) but I could not do his (still can't). This means his skills are in much higher demand relative to supply and as a result he got paid a lot, lot, more.
The proletariat (can I just say that I love that we're having a conversation that can include the word proletariat) does indeed receive wages that decrease, but this is the fault of inflation, not of capitalism. (If you think inflation is caused by capitalism - it's not. I can explain why if you'd like later on.)
Profit and loss isn't exactly reward and punishment (because not getting a reward isn't the same as getting punished). I guess I don't have much of a response to this except to say that we're not increasing in unhappiness (if we even are?) because of capitalism. Even if we were in a fully capitalist system, correlation is not causation.
Well, now I see why you think it's immoral, so you've accomplished that much.
I'd like to add that Milo has given some good answers here as well that I mostly agree with.