What is the goal of business?

[Barney]

I should perhaps specify, I do not think swindlers and cheats are participating in capitalistic behavior. They are thieves. They are anti-capitalist. They are not "making money" in the sense that they are producing what other people want and trading with them. They are taking money by deception. I am all for making rules to ensure transparency and honesty.

I wanted to break this out into another thread because I think this is really valuable. I wonder how far something can be said to be swindling and cheating?

• If I sell fast-food which contains little nutrition, makes people obese, and has an ingredient that gives it a slightly addictive quality (but I don't advertise it like that), then am I a good capitalist as long as the person buying my food "wants" it? I mean, they might not know the full effects of obesity on their health, marital prospects, self-esteem, etc. but they probably have a vague idea that this is not the healthiest thing to eat. Am I participating in morally acceptable behavior as long as I'm producing what someone else wants?
• I gave this example here, too. Is it morally acceptable for me to run a brothel? I'm providing something that people want. They pay me for it. All parties have mutually and freely consented to the transaction. In fact, is it more than morally neutral - is it laudable, because I'm using my business skills to provide a service that people want?

Personally, when I do business, I want to provide what is actually best for the customer rather than what will sell the most or what will make me the most money. The difference between these things becomes evident pretty quickly when you are in business. I want to know whether capitalism makes this distinction or whether it doesn't care?

[Ondrej]

If I sell fast-food which contains little nutrition, makes people obese, and has an ingredient that gives it a slightly addictive quality (but I don't advertise it like that), then am I a good capitalist as long as the person buying my food "wants" it? I mean, they might not know the full effects of obesity on their health, marital prospects, self-esteem, etc. but they probably have a vague idea that this is not the healthiest thing to eat. Am I participating in morally acceptable behavior as long as I'm producing what someone else wants?

This is somewhat hard to say. If they are demonstrably trying to trick their customers that is one thing. However, there is some responsibility on the customers as well. I go eat fast food frequently, knowing full well what I am going to get. What they are selling me is cheap, fast, and satiating (I am under no delusions that it is healthy for me). If they were trying to say it is healthier than vegetables and exercise then it is deceptive. But if I want to occasionally buy junk food I don't think it should be up to the government to decide for me. I applaud fast food companies for giving me cheap, tasty food at every exit on the highway.

People are not trying to buy health at a fast food restaurant. I think what they are trying to buy is fast food. Typically they do deliver on that promise. It is fast, and it is food (and cheap!). If you do not like it you can eat somewhere else. Subway, for example, was/is trying to market themselves as the healthier alternative to fast food. As people's priorities evolve the options will also evolve. But just because I think something is unhealthy for me doesn't mean I should force everyone else to abstain from it. Currently, I do intermittent fasting and I think many people would be much better off health-wise if they also did this. But not coerced.

[Barney]

I'm getting to the point where I want a clearer definition of what capitalism is. I'm wavering between a few definitions based on everything you've been saying.

For example, you have said that capitalism is morally neutral (apart from don't steal). But then you've said that running a brothel is not morally neutral. Doesn't that mean that you are not a pure capitalist? You make a negative moral judgment about something that (a) doesn't steal from anyone, (b) is freely consented to by all parties, (c) doesn't swindle, and (d) has no government involvement.

• Is capitalism really nothing more than saying "Government: keep out of economic activity." Under that umbrella of the free market, all kinds of ideologies and moral frameworks may cohabitate, all of which are equally capitalist as long as they don't demand that the government get involved. Therefore, I can condemn all kinds of businesses as evil, and say that no upright person would be involved with them (cigarette companies, brothels, fast food companies, anything that harms human well-being) - I can even give generously to poor people and encourage others to do so - even enjoin them to do so. I can be deeply concerned about our environmental impact and call on people to stop buying plastics. But I am still a capitalist because I am not invoking the government. Is that capitalism?
• OR, is capitalism a more pervasive ideology which says: (a) everyone gets what they deserve in the free market; that is why the free market is best. (b) All businesses are morally equal as long as they are providing something their customers want in a mutual free exchange of resources, (c) there should be no restrictions on immigration (because such restrictions would impede free trade), (d) as long as you're making money in an honest way, you're a morally upright person - even if you are making money by running a brothel or some other business that entices people to celebrate their basest animal instincts, doing great harm to themselves and other people in the process.

Which of these two is the true capitalism? Because if it's the former, then I'm a capitalist to a certain degree. I don't think the government should keep out of all economic activity, but I agree that the free market should be left alone to a large extent. If it's the latter, then I'm definitely not a capitalist, because it is clear to me that most people don't get what they deserve, some businesses are evil and entice people to evil behaviour, and even - this may surprise you - I think that there should be restrictions on immigration. I am not in favour of "open borders" like the libertarians I mentioned in this threat

[Ondrej]

Ok, yes, I've been switching between what capitalism calls for and my opinion on what is right and good for people.

Capitalism is morally neutral on most sins, that is, it does not explicitly forbid any sins other than theft and use of coersion to get what you want. The purpose of this is not to condone all these other sins but rather to strip away power from the government from policing them. They may still be wrong but it is not the government's job to ensure its citizens are moral.

You spell out two options for what capitalism is. I think the first option is more true but I want to comment on the second option. a) everyone gets what they deserve. I don't think this is true. The capitalistic framework does not really comment about what people deserve. We could certainly try to frame it in this way, making money is evidence of correct behavior therefore whoever turns a profit is good. But I think this confuses "legally allowed" with "morally right". The error here is that by framing it in this way we are assuming that capitalism weighs in on all of morality. We are confusing what citizens should be responsible for and what the government should be responsible for, assuming that if the government does not forbid some action then it is condoned as moral. b) all businesses are morally equal. I think the point is, rather, that many immoral businesses should be tolerated not because they are acting morally but because it should not be in the government's purview to regulate them. In other words, we tolerate them insofar as we do not involve the government to coerce them into behaving differently. We can use any number of other levers of influence just not government. c) there should be no restrictions on immigration. I'm actually not sure what capitalism says about this. Immigration is not free trade. And capitalism assumes everyone is living under the same rules. Immigration introduces people living under other rules on the outside. Does capitalism say anything about these people? d) as long as you are making money you are morally upright. I don't think capitalism makes this claim. I think it is much more tepid. You might not be doing anything illegal but freedom from fines and imprisonment is not the same thing as acting morally. I think there is plenty to be critical of that capitalism does not forbid, we just don't want the government getting involved in every question of morality and trying to force people to do what we think is right. As soon as we say there should be a law forbidding X what we are saying is that it should not be people's responsibility but the government's.

That being said I do think there are certain moral questions we do want the government to weigh in on despite that capitalism might permit it. However, I'm very tepid on this front because I don't see any clear lines where we can say this is too far. If there is no clear stopping point for the government then nothing prevents a continuous erosion of people's freedom and a continuous accumulation of power and control by the government. Would it be worth allowing brothels if it means we can prevent North Korean style authoritarian rule? Probably so. Does this mean brothels are morally good? No. It means preserving our freedom to choose is more valuable than coercing others to behave in ways that we would like.

[Barney]

This is really helpful - thank you!

So if I understand you correctly, as long as I don't imply that the government should do something about it, I can be involved in all kinds of social justice and still be 100% a capitalist. For example, I can call Amazon an evil company that abuses its workers, I can boycott it and encourage others to boycott it. I can say that what they do is morally wrong and reprehensible. But as long as I don't cross the line and say "the government should . . ." I am still as much a capitalist as anyone else, right?

Another example: I can say that the way we abuse the environment is appalling and we should do all we can as individuals to decrease our carbon footprints. We should buy eco-friendly products wherever possible, reduce our airplane flights and meat eating, and campaign for others to do the same. I can encourage people to boycott companies who pollute the environment. And in all of this, I'm no less capitalist than anyone else, as long as I don't say "the government should . . ." ?

Third example: I can say that there is a thoroughly unChristian way to do business, which is to seek profit over people, to squeeze as much money out of clients for as little product as possible, and to squeeze as much work out of employees for as little salary as possible. This is morally wrong and should be condemned, and if we find out a company is like this, we should stop buying their products in protest. Instead, we should start companies who genuinely seek the good of the customer and the flourishing of the employees, even the ones who are most vulnerable and who we could exploit if we wanted. We should do this even when we have nothing to gain from it, because it's the right thing to do. As long as I am not calling on the government to make laws, I'm still 100% capitalist.

Because if so, then I think we've much more interesting things to discuss than how much the government should be involved in this. We can agree to disagree on how much the government should get involved (it seems I think it should be involved a little bit more than you). But we can leave that aside - or keep discussing it in another thread. I want to talk about how we shift the direction of capitalist culture to be more Christian, more eco-friendly, more just, and more compassionate towards the poor.