Review:
The Morality of Capitalism: What Your Professors Won't Tell You
Tom G. Palmer, Editor
Jameson Books, 2011
129 pp.; pb
Recently there fell into my hands a copy of a slender paperback volume entitled The Morality of Capitalism, a collection of essays edited by Dr. Tom G. Palmer. Dr. Palmer is a graduate of The Catholic University of America as well as of Oxford, and is currently a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and an executive vice president of the Atlas Network.
The volume in hand begins with a short introduction by Dr. Palmer, followed by an interview with Mr. John Mackey, cofounder of Whole Foods Market. The rest of the book consists of twelve essays by various authors, all extolling the virtues of free market economics. The authors come from a variety of backgrounds, as well as from several different countries, including both Russia and China.
As might be expected from an anthology of this type, not all of the authors are in complete agreement with each other. Mr. Mackey, in particular, presents a fairly benign view of capitalism, noting that there is nothing about a free market, per se, that prevents an entrepreneur from being compassionate or humane.
Ayn Rand (1905-1982) |
True to form, Mr. Kelley attacks the idea of "social justice" as a concept rooted in altruism, and proceeds to argue that there is nothing morally wrong with pursuing one's one self-interest. Man's highest good, he says, is his own life, and to with that end in mind he participates in the marketplace, which should be governed by the principles of freedom, equality, and justice. But that, he says, does not mean that a given individual is in any way obligated to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of others. ". . . the only social restraint that capitalism imposes is the requirement that those who wish the services of others must offer value in return." He then draws the practical conclusion: "No one may use the state to expropriate what others have produced" (p.80). By don't the poor deserve consideration? ". . .there is no ground in justice for holding the poor or the meek in any special esteem or regarding their needs as primary . . .No one can claim a right to make others serve him involuntarily, even if his own life depends on it" (p. 81). In other words, it is wrong for the government to use tax dollars to alleviate poverty. A state run social welfare program is inherently unjust.
Mr. Kelley notes that altruism is deeply rooted in western culture, and then suggests, in the concluding paragraph of his essay, that mankind needs to break with its ethical past. "The ethical principle that individual ability is a social asset is incompatible with a free society. If freedom is to survive and flourish, we need a fourth revolution, a moral revolution, that establishes the moral right of the individual to live for himself" (pp. 82-83). In other words, what he is proposing is nothing less than the eradication of Christian morality. Significantly, he began his essay with a quote from Thomas Paine: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again" (Common Sense). Mr. Kelley's essay is a Libertarian manifesto indeed!
Next: What the Bible actually says about social justice.
You may also enjoy (click on link):
The Social Agenda of the Tea Party
Objectivism" is the name given by the late Ms. Rand to her philosophy. Ms. Rand was an atheist who was vigorously opposed to any form of altruism.
ReplyDeleteAn atheist?
This is relevent how?
No one philosophy is connected to atheism; either good, bad or indifferent.
Mr. Kelley's essay is a Libertarian manifesto indeed!
You do understand that atheists are not Libertarians, right?
Some may be. Some many not. Others may never have even heard of Ayn Rand nor read any of her books.
They are two unrelated topics.
Hitchens, to name one famous example, couldn't stand the woman.
Doesn't make him any less of an atheist.
In other words, what he is proposing is nothing less than the eradication of Christian morality
If that's what he is proposing, then why do you not give me the chance to read it for myself? Why do you put yourself between me and the book and establish yourself as a middleman?
You have the book?
You have the page number?
Then quote the relevent passage.
I read English quite well, thank you. I don't need you to hold my hand.
Quote the paragraph. In context, in detail.
Lenin and Stalin were atheists, and Ayn Rand couldn't stand them!
ReplyDeleteActually, the difference in philosophies tells you something about atheism. If God is not the ultimate reality, then what is? Rand's answer is the individual human being, existing in a society with his equally autonomous human beings, each pursuing his/her own self interest. In the philosophy of Lenin and Stalin, the state takes the place of God. The state imposed order in society, and attends to social needs.
Now Rand (and Nietzsche) could argue that the Marxists were cheating, that they borrowed something from Christianity without acknowledging it, viz., an ethical perspective (from each according to his ability; from each according to his need) and an eschatological perspective (a workers paradise replaces the Messianic kingdom in Jewish and Christian thought). And Rand and Nietzsche could argue that there is no rational basis for either of these elements in Marxist thought -- it is just pure escapism, plain and simple.
What is fascinating about thinkers such as Rand and Nietzsche is that they tried to think their atheist presuppositions to their logical conclusions, and came up with some startling results.
Lenin and Stalin were atheists, and Ayn Rand couldn't stand them!
ReplyDeletePlus Hitchens couldn't stand any of the above.
This is why when fundies spout on about an "atheist worldview" I always ask them what they are talking about.
I have yet to get an honest reply.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you how many confused or malicious people out there somehow equate "atheism therefore communism" or "atheism therefore Hitler" or "atheism therefore oh-my-gosh-that's-horribleism" or some other such nonsense.
There is no atheist worldview. No atheist philosophy. No club or set of rules. There's nothing. It's only a position on a single solitary issue and nothing else.
You can be an atheist and be a totally horrible person.
You can be an atheist and be a fantastically wonderful person.
One is not connected to the other.
In the philosophy of Lenin and Stalin, the state takes...
Don't do that. Please.
Stop being my interpreter on what Lenin or Stalin's philosophies were. I don't need you to hold my hand. It's a dangerous habit and you do it all the time. You are writing a blank cheque for yourself to create a strawman.
Now Rand (and Nietzsche) could argue...
The only sensible thing to do is look at what they wrote.
They were both writers, yes?
Then quote them. In context. In detail. Be as fair and as reasonable as possible.
What is fascinating about thinkers such as Rand and Nietzsche is that they tried to think their atheist presuppositions...
(...facepalm...)
Bob, you can't do this. It's dishonest. You have to treat your readers with a little more credit. Stop asking me to just take your word on something.
Atheist presuppositions? What on Earth is that supposed to mean?
Spell them out and back them up.
Nothing else counts.
A "worldview" (Weltanschauung) is how you conceive of ultimate reality. Everyone has one, at least tacitly, even they are not philosophers or theologians and have never sat down and self-consciously thought about it. The average person just sort of assumes that there's just a certain way that the world is.
ReplyDeleteIt is perfectly true, however, that there is no one, specific atheist worldview, apart from the assertion that there is no God. In fact, part of the challenge of atheism is conceiving how the universe functions if there is no God. Each philosopher has his own ideas, of course, (they are all original thinkers, aren't they), but as a general rule they will tend to go in one of two directions. Some will take the rational, scientific approach. We could even call this "the modern scientific worldview," or naturalistic materialism. It asserts that the entire universe functions according to certain well-defined laws, and that these laws can be discerned through human reason. The major problem with this view is that it tends to reduce human beings to the status of cogs in a machine.
The other major approach is the irrationalist one -- Existentialism and Post-Modernism. If God does not exist, how can there be a rational order to the universe? Isn't knowledge a matter of our subjective (and biased) perception? Thinkers of this variety tend to deny absolutes of any kind, including universal truth.
There are many variation on the themes, of course. What shall we make of "Dialectical Materialism"? But no matter which specific atheistic worldview you choose to adopt. moral laws, rights and obligations become problematical, because there is no divine lawgiver to establish them. How can a right be "unalienable" (to use Thomas Jefferson's word) if does not come from our Creator? Either our "rights" are contingent upon the will of the majority, or else they are simply non-existent. And how can we say that we have a "duty" or "obligation" to respect each other's persons and property? Who says?
You mentioned that you spent some time in Russia -- did you have a connection with Marxism at one time?
It is perfectly true, however, that there is no one, specific atheist worldview, apart from the assertion that there is no God.
ReplyDeleteNo.
You have it wrong.
Again.
According to you definition, a Hindu would qualify as an atheist.
Hindus believe in Gods, not your particular [Brand-name].
Further, atheists don't assert that there is no god/gods.
(Well, that's not strictly true but the point I'm trying to make is that your definition does not accurately describe atheists.) It's too narrow to be useful.
First, find out what atheists actually do say.
Use primary sources. Represent them as fairly and as honestly as you would have them represent your own views.
Lack of belief in gods.
The major problem with this view is that it tends to reduce human beings to the status of cogs in a machine.
"The argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin, is a logical fallacy that the perceived outcomes of a proposition can determine its veracity. An example of arguing from adverse consequences might go like: belief in the theory of evolution leads to eugenics; therefore the theory of evolution is false. Conversely an argument from favourable consequences might go: belief in god leads to an increase in charitable giving; therefore god exists."
(Rationalwiki)
If God does not exist, how can there be a rational order to the universe?
If the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, how can there be a rational order to the universe?
Spot the in-built assumption.
How can a right be "unalienable" (to use Thomas Jefferson's word) if does not come from our Creator?
How can a right be "unalienable" (to use Thomas Jefferson's word) if does not come from our magic Bigfoot?
Spot the in-built assumption.
And how can we say that we have a "duty" or "obligation" to respect each other's persons and property? Who says?
Good questions. However, you ruin it when you unthinkingly reach for you geographically-based in-built assumptions. If you follow that methodology, then the other guy gets do it too. It's fair play. However, he has a different geography and a different set of in-built assumptions.
Try tackling the questions...without reference to your local geography.
...did you have a connection with Marxism at one time?
Me? Heavens no! I was there for a world-class education at bargain basement prices. Thanks to a fluke of history, I was able to achieve certain qualifications that greatly expanded my horizons in life. It was, quite literally, a unique education. My professors and trainers over the years were the very best yet they were only being paid in worthless rubles. I was able to offer them hard currency.
All parties ended up being very satisfied with the arrangement.
It was a transformative chapter of my life.
So how would an atheist establish a basis for an "unalienable right," or for a duty or obligation?
ReplyDeleteSo how would an atheist establish...
ReplyDeleteFirst, you have to understand what is an atheist.
It is perfectly true, however, that there is no one, specific atheist worldview, apart from the assertion that there is no God.
No, it isn't.
You need to find out what is an atheist.
It's incredibly simple and there's no great mystery to it.
Yet after all this time, you don't know what an atheist is.
If you are going to communicate with atheists or discuss atheism in any way then you need to have a clear and honest understanding of what is an atheist.
I let religious people define themselves and quote them verbatim.
You should do the same thing.
Ninth Commandment, remember?
Watch the video I provided. Go to any mainstream atheist website and find out for yourself.
Then come back and give the working definition you've found and we can go on from there.
Fair enough?
I have it on the authority of a distinguished atheist that "There is no atheist worldview. No atheist philosophy. No club or set of rules. There's nothing. It's only a position on a single solitary issue and nothing else." -- Cedric Katesby, comment of Jan. 25.
ReplyDelete(Actually, when he said "There's nothing," he may have said more than he intended to.)
I have it on the authority of a distinguished atheist...
DeleteNo, you don't.
Don't misrepresent me. We both know that I am not an "authority" nor am I claiming to be one.
It's only a position on a single solitary issue and nothing else.
So find out for yourself what that position is.
I'm not asking you to just take my word on this.
Find out for yourself.
You need to find out what is an atheist.
It's incredibly simple and there's no great mystery to it.
Actually, when he said...
Bob? Over here? Hello?
(...waves hand...)
"There's nothing," he may have said more than he intended to.
Nope. I am confident that you will do the right thing and not bear false witness. That you will be as fair and as reasonable as possible. You won't feel any need to twist my words or infer something that simply is not there.
Watch the video I provided. Go to any mainstream atheist website and find out for yourself.
Then come back and give the working definition you've found and we can go on from there.
Fair enough?
I know perfectly well what an atheist is. What I am trying to get you to see is the logical interconnection of ideas.
ReplyDeleteAn agnostic might be able legitimately to say that he doesn't have a worldview. He can honestly say that he does not know whether or not God exists, and he might honestly not know what to make of the universe and of life. He simply does not know.
Everyone else, though, has already made up his mind. And atheism has definite implications. Once we reject theism there are only a handful of other possibilities. I mentioned the two most common. If you would like to add another one of your own, I would be very much interested in hearing it.
Perhaps you are an "extinguished" authority on atheism?
I know perfectly well what an atheist is.
ReplyDeleteThen demonstrate it.
Perhaps you are an "extinguished" authority on atheism?
No. I am not nor have I ever been an authority on atheism.
I have not nor have I ever claimed to be an authority on atheism.
Are we clear now?
Watch the video I provided. Demonstrate that you know what is an atheist. Don't just wave your hands in the air.
When you say"...It is perfectly true, however, that there is no one, specific atheist worldview, apart from the assertion that there is no God...." then that shows that you have it wrong.
First, find out what atheists actually do say.
Use primary sources. Represent them as fairly and as honestly as you would have them represent your own views.
Why would you refuse to do this?
This is a direct appeal to your personal integrity and sense of honesty.
Ninth Commandment, remember?
All I am asking you to do it to go to any mainstream atheist website and find out for yourself.
Then come back and give the working definition you've found and we can go on from there.
"atheist, n.: one who denies the existence of God" Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
ReplyDeleteI have to take my computer to the repair shop -- among other things it appears to have a dysfunctional version of Adobe Acrobat. I hope to be back in a couple of days.
"atheist, n.: one who denies the...
ReplyDeleteNo, Bob.
This cuts to the heart of your personal integrity and sense of honesty.
Find out what atheists actually say.
No, really!
Find out what they say.
Use primary sources. Represent them as fairly and as honestly as you would have them represent your own views.
Ninth Commandment, remember?
All I am asking you to do it to go to any mainstream atheist website and find out for yourself.
What is stopping you?
I've even given you two videos to help you along.
Why do you refuse to watch and learn?
Stop clinging to your strawmen.
If you want to discuss atheism then...discuss atheism.
I am confident that you will do the right thing and not bear false witness.
(It may take several proddings from me but, eventually, I am sure you will do the right thing. Go for it!)