Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

Sorry but I don't agree with your : force is not the opposite of morality, and the government will never have the exclusivity of force.
Beside, putting a gun on you head is not the only way to make you do something.
A very basic example is that in a perfect capitalist society, you can be forced to starve if you have no money.

Causing harm is the opposite of morality, so communism, as a system designed to be the best for everyone (supposedly, because I don't think it would be) have the advantage of morality over capitalism.
I, personally see capitalist theory as a mathematical description of what happen when you don't control the economy. Going from that, you can try to fix inappropriate behavior of the system and to add a touch of morality.

Edit: As for why causing harm is the opposite of morality, see my post in the feet-shooting thread.

[Criptfeind]

I am going to chime in with a: I believe that for something as vaguely defined as morality the only thing you can really say is opposite of it is immorality.

Thus: Force/Harm may or may not be opposite of morality, but morality is not opposite of Force/Harm.

[scriver]

@Zrk2
Besides what's been said already; it's a ridiculous assertion that noone forces you to work. If you don't, you starve, and your family and children starve. That's not a choice, that's force. Otherwise, you might as well say that people in communistic systems has a choice not to work as well.

[Leafsnail]

I don't think Randian policies would even work very well in a perfect world, mainly because there's absolutely no logical consistency in them.  I mean, the redefinition of the word "moral" and then the flip-flop between that and the classic definition of moral is one example of the ridiculously muddled thinking behind it.

Force is the opposite of morality.

If one accepts this then the only truly moral system is capitalism, since no one forces you to work, as the state can in communism, as inherent in any demand of the state is the threat of force in the form of the police/army to back it up.

This is... one of the worst arguments I have ever read.

You start by saying something completely incorrect under any normal definition.  You then use a false dichotomy and ignore the potential force inherent in capitalism to say that capitalism is moral (and of course you're trying to imply that it's "moral" in the traditional sense rather than moral in the sense you just pulled out of your ass).

I mean, I could rewrite this argument:


Sugar is the opposite of morality.

If one accepts this then the only truly moral food is muffins, since since they have no sugar, in the way that cupcakes do.

However in the real world amoral assholes bribe the government to allow them to use force and so pure capitalism cannot work in the real world.

How exactly does the government prevent people from using force if they're not allowed to use force?  What exactly qualifies as force?  Why does it necessarily require bribing the government to use force?

As to communism, it is inherently immoral since the government running everything implies forcing everyone to work, making it immoral, and also it cannot work in the real world for the same reasons; the inherent amorality of people.

Uhh... what?  If amorality is the willingness to use force, and people are inherently amoral, why is a system that is dependant on the use of force (and which is hence fundamentally amoral) doomed to fail?  If you're gonna use a bullshit definition, at least stick to it.

So, capitalism-1, communism-0.

What???  You just said that neither can work, and then arbitrarily say that one gets a better score than the other (presumably because of your bullshit definition of morality, assumption that private corporations can't use force etc).

[Strife26]

[3]
Zrk's argument would be better put as "Freedom is the ultimate expression of morality" I think.


Strife enters the thread with a pithy statement but no actual discussion and without actually reading more than a page back.

[Leafsnail]

That premise is simply... well, completely wrong.  Freedom allows you to be moral, sure, but if you have freedom then you can also be immoral or amoral just as easily.

[RedKing]

I think a better way to phrase what I think Strife thinks Zrk2 is saying (are we confused yet) is that an utterly moral person would never try to control another, and that a community of utterly moral people would allow total freedom. An anarchist utopia, because laws are only required when people are immoral (or amoral).

Of course, as pointed out multiple times in this thread, said group of people (hell, said state of total morality) doesn't actually exist.

[Fenrir]

That premise is simply... well, completely wrong.  Freedom allows you to be moral, sure, but if you have freedom then you can also be immoral or amoral just as easily.

You would need to define what is moral to support this assertion, and Strife26 would need to explain why freedom is the ultimate expression of morality, but I think we should grant him leniency; his argument might have been better if he rolled something higher than 3.

[3]
Zrk's argument would be better put as "Freedom is the ultimate expression of morality" I think.

[Leafsnail]

You would need to define what is moral to support this assertion, and Strife26 would need to explain why freedom is the ultimate expression of morality, but I think we should grant him leniency; his argument might have been better if he rolled something higher than 3.

It makes more sense if we use RedKing's interpretation and make it about not taking freedom from others, but even if we assume that we're allowed to use force to stop other people from using force and that everyone agrees on exactly what constitutes force (which is basically impossible even if everyone were perfectly "moral") then... well, this standard of "morality" is pretty far removed from any classic view of the word (such as those based on The Golden Rule).  For instance, it would not be immoral or amoral to stand by and watch someone else die even if you could easily prevent it from happening.

[Fenrir]

I was not so much referring to the logical inconsistancies in Zrk2's post; I was referring to your statement that Strife26's premise is completely wrong. I was trying to say that, since there is no moral code writ in stone anywhere, you may well be asserting subjective opinion as objective fact.

Now that I think about it, I think it reasonable to assume that Zrk2 and Strife26 hold moral values similar to those based upon the Golden Rule, so I think your assertion holds true anyway, at least in this circumstance. Consider my objection rescinded.

[Montague]

Morality is really sort of a metaphysical concept and as such its defined depending on what sort of philosophical lens you are observing with.

Most people seem to default at Christian morality or some form of Utilitarianism if they give it any thought, at least in the USA.

Communism and capitalism both have plenty Utilitarian advocates and arguments in their favor. John Stuart Mill as an advocate of capitalism is one such guy, although utilitarians that that don't think much tend to gravitate toward american liberalism and other left-wing ideology with all their promises to alleviate poverty and force people to be happy and safe by taking away their guns, motorcycles and cigarettes and whatnot.

Anyways I'm not sure I had a point to make, but there is that anyways.

[Nikov]

The optimum society is for every man to own his own means of production. Communism presumes this is impossible, and takes from a man all ownership of means of production. Capitalism presumes this is possible, and grants every man his own labor as a means of production with which to earn his tools as well.

[nenjin]

Communism presumes this is impossible, and takes from a man all ownership of means of production.

Communism presumes that ownership of production is what leads to the rich preying on the poor to power their means of production, to the benefit of one instead of society.

Captialism believes one man being the grease in the cogs of another man's machine is just the right and natural order of things.

[Criptfeind]

Communism presumes that people are too dumb to work on their own and must be told what to do. By force if necessary.

Capitalism believes that one should make ones own destiny with ones own labor.

See I can do it too.

[Montague]

Communism presumes that wealth is a static sum and any one who becomes wealthier must forever impoverish somebody else to do so.

Capitalism believes that individuals should be able to use their minds and labor to benefit themselves and which by doing so, benefits others.