Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ewv

Audacious Promise: moral case for capitalism - without rights

3 posts in this topic

More of the same from a conservative philosopher: capitalism as moral 'service' without rights as its basis -- so keep looking for what else is "available" for collective utilitarianism.

http://www.ncpa.org/...tm_campaign=DPD

http://www.manhattan...g/pdf/ir_12.pdf

AN AUDACIOUS PROMISE: THE MORAL CASE FOR CAPITALISM

James R. Otteson, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

... markets allow us to “serve” one another even when we do not love one another—even when we do not know of one another’s existence. That implies an extensive, deep, and pervasive interdependence—which is a real, if different kind of, community.
"We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their own advantages.” Some read that and hear selfishness. But Smith saw in the dynamics of such exchanges not selfishness but respect.

With service to others as the basis there is nothing to stop us from adopting something else if it is claimed to 'work' for the collective:

Capitalism is not perfect. But no system created by human beings is, or ever will be, perfect. The most we can hope for is continuing gradual improvement. To this end, we must honestly examine the prospects of the available systems of political economy... We should wish to extend these benefits rather than to curtail them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More of the same from a conservative philosopher: capitalism as moral 'service' without rights as its basis -- so keep looking for what else is "available" for collective utilitarianism. http://www.ncpa.org/...tm_campaign=DPD http://www.manhattan...g/pdf/ir_12.pdf
AN AUDACIOUS PROMISE: THE MORAL CASE FOR CAPITALISM James R. Otteson, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH
... markets allow us to “serve” one another even when we do not love one another—even when we do not know of one another’s existence. That implies an extensive, deep, and pervasive interdependence—which is a real, if different kind of, community.
"We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their own advantages.” Some read that and hear selfishness. But Smith saw in the dynamics of such exchanges not selfishness but respect.
With service to others as the basis there is nothing to stop us from adopting something else if it is claimed to 'work' for the collective:
Capitalism is not perfect. But no system created by human beings is, or ever will be, perfect. The most we can hope for is continuing gradual improvement. To this end, we must honestly examine the prospects of the available systems of political economy... We should wish to extend these benefits rather than to curtail them.

It appears as though you read these quotes so as to imply a duty. If so, how did you come to the conclusion. If not, ignore the question.

Since I did not see any mention of a duty in any of these quotes I inferred no duty.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears as though you read these quotes so as to imply a duty. If so, how did you come to the conclusion. If not, ignore the question.

Since I did not see any mention of a duty in any of these quotes I inferred no duty.

The article did not discuss "duty" that I recall, and I did not mention it or say it did. If you want to discuss how an ethics of self sacrifice and service to others leads to duty to sacrifice and statism you should start a thread on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0