4 ms·

My thought experiment for considering the moral limits of capitalism: If producing Soylent Green were legal and profitable, would there be actors willing to pro

My thought experiment for considering the moral limits of capitalism: If producing Soylent Green were legal and profitable, would there be actors willing to produce and sell it? If you answer no, see: Philip Morris, Lockheed, Beretta, etc.

smt88 8y ago
Coca-Cola will likely kill more people than guns and organized crime, honestly. But I see your point. There is a lot of evidence that organized crime is a substitute for opportunities in legitimate society, so that example is perhaps not applicable. The opioid crisis caused by US pharma may be a bigger and better example.
- whyaduck 8y ago
  "Organized crime" is an exceptionally poor example since the premise involves the legality of the activity/product. Edited. Regarding Coca-Cola vs guns - the list wasn't comprehensive :).
- notatcomputer68 8y ago
  Organized crime is a huge problem. Like just take Mexico. Really poor and that's because of organized crime. If they were richer they could probably save a lot of lives. I think that's a bigger factor than the number of people shot dead.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
You're being downvoted for some reason, but the point on morality and capitalism is sound. For examples you might have been better choosing cases where the production rather than use by customers is problematic. Radium paint and dials, asbestos, prior to 20th century regulations food and medicine fraud and adulteration so endemic that finding just the correct product was almost impossible. Which is what led those regulations in the first place.
- whyaduck 8y ago
  Allowing businesses to divorce themselves from responsibility for the effects of what they produce, regardless of consumer choice, is too easy. I have no idea what the equivalent of "Saturday morning cartoons" is today, but 20 years ago, that slot was filled with commercials for sugary foods, targeted at children. Now we have payday loans, "buy here pay here" and a host of other services that capitalize on unsophisticated consumers in precarious economic conditions. Capitalism is what it is - an utterly amoral engine of profit. Without regulation and legal frameworks it will create slaves, destroy the environment, kill and maim people - there's almost no limit. What the OP's anecdote illustrates is that there's also a deep cultural issue at play.
  - utternerd 8y ago
    Free Markets aren't amoral at all, if I produce something of value and we swap value, I fail to see how that is amoral. In fact, preventing that transaction is amoral. Slavery itself was amoral, and codified and enforced by the state. Many in the South abhorred slavery and segregation, but had no choice but to follow the law. Killing and maiming people has been a State activity since they've existed. It's one of the things they're very efficient at.
    - krastanov 8y ago
      I think you confused the words "amoral" and "immoral". OP was talking about "amoral" - lack of concern about moral principles. You seem to be talking about "immoral" - actively breaking moral principles.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Wow. Laws which were put in place by plantation and slave owners wishing to preserve the profit and status quo they created. They controlled most of the machinery of government as well as their little plantation. Slavery was only ended at the insistence of laws put in place by the state.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      This is some absolutely disgusting historical revisionism with regards to how the south treated slavery. Make no mistake, Slavery was an intended feature. Not a bug, nor a result of a state gone wild. It was considered part of their economy and part of their free market.
paulddraper 8y ago
I suspect you are being downvoted for comparing secretive cannibalism to security/defense. But yes, supply will provide every legal thing in demand. Indeed, that is how the invisible hand is "supposed" to work.
- whyaduck 8y ago
  Lockheed's involved in the maintenance (and previously, manufacture) of thermonuclear weapons. I'm pretty comfortable with my comparison.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    Thermonuclear weapons also have been the single most effective peacekeeping tool in the history of the world.
    - whyaduck 8y ago
      That's a remarkably confident statement that's completely unprovable. I could just as easily posit easy international travel, world trade, mass media, democracy, and many other things as more effective than h-bombs for bringing about the relative peace of the late 20th/early 21st century. Those particular things have the added benefit that they generally don't risk the side-effect of world annihilation.
      - paulddraper 8y ago
        > completely unprovable Yes, it's challenging to answer with certainty. Though "easy international travel, world trade, mass media, democracy, etc." were not invented at almost the precise moment that all-out large scale wars ("world wars") on Earth ended.
        canhascodez 8y ago
        The world came pretty close to large-scale nuclear war, actually. I'm not sure why you think that's no longer possible.
castlecrasher2 8y ago
I agree with you, people can do all kinds of terrible things especially for the sake of profit. I believe comparing defense contractors and firearms manufacturers with eating people could be considered disingenuous, however.
forapurpose 8y ago
Like other commenters, I think this thought experiment goes much too far. On the other hand, many companies worked with the Nazis, work with the Saudis, Russians, and many others today, and sell all sorts of things to oppressive governments including the tools of oppression (such as those selling censorship and hacking tools to various dictatorships[0]). If the U.S. became an authoritarian dictatorship, I don't doubt that many companies would do business with the dictator too. But I'd like to examine it with more nuance: Does it vary across time or across place? Is it different than the culture of the people from which the company emerged (e.g., how do private American citizens behave differently than large American companies)? Most importantly, on what factors does good and bad corporate behavior depend? My guess is that some of this research has been done - I'd love some pointers to it. [0] A recent headline: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-israel-s-cyber-spy-industry-aids-dictators-hunt-dissidents-and-gays-1.6573027 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-israel...
- whyaduck 8y ago
  Capitalism is capitalism. It's limited by laws and culture. In the US, that means it's limited by laws - Wall Street doesn't care about culture.

smt88 8y ago

Coca-Cola will likely kill more people than guns and organized crime, honestly. But I see your point. There is a lot of evidence that organized crime is a substitute for opportunities in legitimate society, so that example is perhaps not applicable. The opioid crisis caused by US pharma may be a bigger and better example.

whyaduck 8y ago
"Organized crime" is an exceptionally poor example since the premise involves the legality of the activity/product. Edited. Regarding Coca-Cola vs guns - the list wasn't comprehensive :).
notatcomputer68 8y ago
Organized crime is a huge problem. Like just take Mexico. Really poor and that's because of organized crime. If they were richer they could probably save a lot of lives. I think that's a bigger factor than the number of people shot dead.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

You're being downvoted for some reason, but the point on morality and capitalism is sound. For examples you might have been better choosing cases where the production rather than use by customers is problematic. Radium paint and dials, asbestos, prior to 20th century regulations food and medicine fraud and adulteration so endemic that finding just the correct product was almost impossible. Which is what led those regulations in the first place.

whyaduck 8y ago
Allowing businesses to divorce themselves from responsibility for the effects of what they produce, regardless of consumer choice, is too easy. I have no idea what the equivalent of "Saturday morning cartoons" is today, but 20 years ago, that slot was filled with commercials for sugary foods, targeted at children. Now we have payday loans, "buy here pay here" and a host of other services that capitalize on unsophisticated consumers in precarious economic conditions. Capitalism is what it is - an utterly amoral engine of profit. Without regulation and legal frameworks it will create slaves, destroy the environment, kill and maim people - there's almost no limit. What the OP's anecdote illustrates is that there's also a deep cultural issue at play.
- utternerd 8y ago
  Free Markets aren't amoral at all, if I produce something of value and we swap value, I fail to see how that is amoral. In fact, preventing that transaction is amoral. Slavery itself was amoral, and codified and enforced by the state. Many in the South abhorred slavery and segregation, but had no choice but to follow the law. Killing and maiming people has been a State activity since they've existed. It's one of the things they're very efficient at.
  - krastanov 8y ago
    I think you confused the words "amoral" and "immoral". OP was talking about "amoral" - lack of concern about moral principles. You seem to be talking about "immoral" - actively breaking moral principles.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Wow. Laws which were put in place by plantation and slave owners wishing to preserve the profit and status quo they created. They controlled most of the machinery of government as well as their little plantation. Slavery was only ended at the insistence of laws put in place by the state.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    This is some absolutely disgusting historical revisionism with regards to how the south treated slavery. Make no mistake, Slavery was an intended feature. Not a bug, nor a result of a state gone wild. It was considered part of their economy and part of their free market.

paulddraper 8y ago

I suspect you are being downvoted for comparing secretive cannibalism to security/defense. But yes, supply will provide every legal thing in demand. Indeed, that is how the invisible hand is "supposed" to work.

whyaduck 8y ago
Lockheed's involved in the maintenance (and previously, manufacture) of thermonuclear weapons. I'm pretty comfortable with my comparison.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  Thermonuclear weapons also have been the single most effective peacekeeping tool in the history of the world.
  - whyaduck 8y ago
    That's a remarkably confident statement that's completely unprovable. I could just as easily posit easy international travel, world trade, mass media, democracy, and many other things as more effective than h-bombs for bringing about the relative peace of the late 20th/early 21st century. Those particular things have the added benefit that they generally don't risk the side-effect of world annihilation.
    - paulddraper 8y ago
      > completely unprovable Yes, it's challenging to answer with certainty. Though "easy international travel, world trade, mass media, democracy, etc." were not invented at almost the precise moment that all-out large scale wars ("world wars") on Earth ended.
      - canhascodez 8y ago
        The world came pretty close to large-scale nuclear war, actually. I'm not sure why you think that's no longer possible.

castlecrasher2 8y ago

I agree with you, people can do all kinds of terrible things especially for the sake of profit. I believe comparing defense contractors and firearms manufacturers with eating people could be considered disingenuous, however.

forapurpose 8y ago

Like other commenters, I think this thought experiment goes much too far. On the other hand, many companies worked with the Nazis, work with the Saudis, Russians, and many others today, and sell all sorts of things to oppressive governments including the tools of oppression (such as those selling censorship and hacking tools to various dictatorships[0]). If the U.S. became an authoritarian dictatorship, I don't doubt that many companies would do business with the dictator too. But I'd like to examine it with more nuance: Does it vary across time or across place? Is it different than the culture of the people from which the company emerged (e.g., how do private American citizens behave differently than large American companies)? Most importantly, on what factors does good and bad corporate behavior depend? My guess is that some of this research has been done - I'd love some pointers to it. [0] A recent headline: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-israel-s-cyber-spy-industry-aids-dictators-hunt-dissidents-and-gays-1.6573027 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-israel...

whyaduck 8y ago
Capitalism is capitalism. It's limited by laws and culture. In the US, that means it's limited by laws - Wall Street doesn't care about culture.