4 ms·

> Capitalism" and "moral obligation" are probably mutually exclusive How else are we supposed to read this than something you are making the case for when you

> Capitalism" and "moral obligation" are probably mutually exclusive How else are we supposed to read this than something you are making the case for when you so directly say they are probably mutually exclusive?

f38zf5vdt 5y ago
I was referring to the "moral obligation" not to take someone's story and make it a different story for the sake of a profit, which the original poster was referring to as a "moral obligation". An alternative perspective is the "moral obligation" to ones employees and shareholders. What is a "moral obligation" is a matter of perspective. I try to avoid a lot of documentaries and "historical" films because of these conflicting sentiments. Going into seeing a film, you know that profit, in most cases, is the end goal.
Y_Y 5y ago
I agree that they're mutually exclusive. It's not necessarily a good thing. I think pretty much all capitalists, as people, have some sense of moral obligation. That's not to say that the two concepts necessarily overlap, or that the world wouldn't be a better place if they were somehow forced to. I think it isn't controversial, as a matter of philosophy, to say that capitalism (as distinct from its observed consequences) is not connected to morality one way or another, any more than bubblesort has a moral value.
- f38zf5vdt 5y ago
  Aye, perhaps using the word "capitalism" set people off. In capitalist terms the demand for the product by consumers justifies the corporation creating the product for them. It might not be "right" or "wrong", but in this case, it does seem like people are on the side of it being morally unjustified despite the profit incentive. I guess our capitalist "vote" is simply not paying to see this film.
- dnautics 5y ago
  your statement is contradictory. Two things cannot be "mutually exclusive" and "not connected". If they are mutually exclusive, then there must be communication between the concepts to coordinate the exclusion, the connection suggested by the word "mutually".

f38zf5vdt 5y ago

I was referring to the "moral obligation" not to take someone's story and make it a different story for the sake of a profit, which the original poster was referring to as a "moral obligation". An alternative perspective is the "moral obligation" to ones employees and shareholders. What is a "moral obligation" is a matter of perspective. I try to avoid a lot of documentaries and "historical" films because of these conflicting sentiments. Going into seeing a film, you know that profit, in most cases, is the end goal.

Y_Y 5y ago

I agree that they're mutually exclusive. It's not necessarily a good thing. I think pretty much all capitalists, as people, have some sense of moral obligation. That's not to say that the two concepts necessarily overlap, or that the world wouldn't be a better place if they were somehow forced to. I think it isn't controversial, as a matter of philosophy, to say that capitalism (as distinct from its observed consequences) is not connected to morality one way or another, any more than bubblesort has a moral value.

f38zf5vdt 5y ago
Aye, perhaps using the word "capitalism" set people off. In capitalist terms the demand for the product by consumers justifies the corporation creating the product for them. It might not be "right" or "wrong", but in this case, it does seem like people are on the side of it being morally unjustified despite the profit incentive. I guess our capitalist "vote" is simply not paying to see this film.
dnautics 5y ago
your statement is contradictory. Two things cannot be "mutually exclusive" and "not connected". If they are mutually exclusive, then there must be communication between the concepts to coordinate the exclusion, the connection suggested by the word "mutually".