The Ethics of Capitalism - Social Europe Journal

or entitled, nor indeed competent,
to ponder – let alone judge
– the fairness or otherwise of
economic systems. And contemporary
philosophers had other
things to worry about.
Added to this was the fact
that Christian morality in the
19th century increasingly
became a pillar of middle-class
respectability, to the point
where it was difficult to distinguish
between the two. And
there was a clear divide
between this middle-class
respectability and the struggle
for survival of the proletariat,
which was seen either as a
threat or as a charitable cause.
The Papal Encyclical Rerum
Novarum was not promulgated
until 1891. That same decade
saw the emergence within the
Protestant church of a Christian
socialism that no longer sought
to protect the monarchy from
the workers, but instead to protect
the workers from those who
would exploit them.
There is at least a clear recognition
now that even economic
systems need to be legitimised
by ethical values. Although Karl
Marx was interested in the
dialectic of history and not in
ethical judgements, all forms of
socialism have seen themselves
as morally superior to capitalism.
Even the social market
economy of Ludwig Erhard
made some claim to moral
authority. And when, towards
the end of the 20th century, a
market-radical ideology that had
its roots in Great Britain and the
USA spread throughout the
world, it brought what might be
termed a new morality into
play. The principal catchword
of this morality was ‘freedom’,
especially in the confrontation
with ‘socialism as it exists in
the real world’ – the idea being
that it should not exist for much
longer. For the rest, the market
radicals promised everyone a
life of affluence, in the long
term at least. Of course, the rich
needed to get richer first, but in
time the ‘trickle-down’ effect
would kick in and wealth
would eventually trickle down
to the poor. The new morality
was assertively self-confident
and aggressive. In contrast to
the liberalism of a hundred
years earlier, no apologies were
felt to be necessary: greed was
necessary and therefore good,
even if many former comrades
on the Left could not comprehend
this. In 1900 a slogan like
Geiz ist geil! (Avarice is sexy! –
the slogan of Germany’s Saturn
appliance-retailing chain)
would have been ditched
amidst public protest. For
Catholics avarice is still a mortal
sin – both the avarice that
refuses to give and the avarice
that cannot get enough. The
surprising thing is that Geiz ist
geil! met with so little protest.
IV. By now only hopeless
dreamers still believe that if
only we let the markets rule
unchecked, a blissful future for
mankind is assured. Now that
these markets have lost unimaginable
sums of money and our
mighty financial institutions
have had to be rescued by the
state, that particular dream is
over. Or it is for those who can
tell the difference between
dream and reality.
Now would really be the time
to question the whole system.
But the question is only ever
put in a very tentative way,
because nobody has an alternative
functioning system to offer.
A different kind of capitalism
Preferably one that is ethically
sound With the striving for
personal gain, but without the
greed and the avarice Driven
by a healthy egoism, but not at
the cost of consideration for
others, for the company workforce,
for environmental sustainability,
for the proper functions
of the state
Countless lectures, seminars
and books have been devoted to
the subject of business ethics
over the years. Even those who
take seriously such efforts to
establish ethical guidelines for
business, and do not dismiss
them as corporate windowdressing,
have to admit that
they have done little to check
the excesses unleashed by market-radical
ideology.
Philosophers from Kant to
Rawls, not to mention Catholic
encyclicals and memoranda
from the Protestant churches,
have struggled to make headway
against the tide of unfettered
market capitalism.
Sermonising seldom achieves
its intended purpose. Why
should this be any different in a
society where the only thing
that counts is success, and
where it is sometimes not the
worthiest individuals who succeed,
but the most cunning
Of course, moral reflection
can be helpful. But it cannot
turn a society that wants to win
at any price, and by any
means, into a society that values
real achievement. It cannot
even prevent the former from
claiming to be the latter. Moral
homilies are probably most
effective when directed against
manifest abuses.
At one time there was less
corruption associated with the
award of contracts. The game of
seeking out tax loopholes has
10 Social Europe Journal Summer 2009