The purpose of this paper is to defend the claim that capitalism is a morally bad economic policy. I am going to achieve this purpose by doing two things. First, I will use act utilitarianism as a moral standard. Second, I will make some factual claims to prove that the capitalism is morally wrong according to the moral standard of act utilitarianism. The following essay will explain the details to my main argument. According to the book, act utilitarianism says “the morally right action is the one that proves the most happiness for all those affected. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory in which the moral worth of an action- right or wrong is determined by whether or not it has a good or bad consequence. Thus, a utilitarian would choose to perform actions that would bring about good effects. Utilitarianism is not merely based on the consequences of ones’ actions; rather it’s the production of the greatest good that would benefit society as a whole that matters. Say for instance, I recently earned my annual sales bonus in which I’m planning to spend. I decided to donate that money to the poor living in impoverished conditions. According to act utilitarianism, financially giving is the morally right thing to do because it would produce the greatest amount of happiness by taking into consideration for the people who do not have or are limited of the basic needs for survival.
At this point, I will make some factual claims that would prove capitalism, an economic system based on free enterprise and private ownership of means of production leads to overall greater unhappiness. Then, I will claim that the free enterprise system is morally wrong according to act utilitarianism. First, I claim that capitalism tends to create various and divisive issues between workers and owners in terms of different economic goals and owners exploitation of laborers. Second, I claim that a capitalistic society leads to unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities for everyone.
Capitalism tends to create a division between workers and owners in the workplace. Adam Smith theorized that it is most beneficial to society when people pursue their own interest to their advantage. This theory adheres to utilitarianism but realistically, the consequences of constant personal, unrestrained pursuits does not always benefit society as a whole, rather it backfires, potentially harming and exploiting. To illustrate, the workplace consists of two main groups- the owners or management of the company and the laborers performing for the means of production. Both sides have different goals and mindsets that can create risk of conflict. For example, owners are prone to exploit workers by reducing wages and increasing hours as means to maximize profits and productivity. Workers tend to act more independently and realize individuality. In addition, workers would want to actively participate by implement creative ideas rather than merely producing what the company requires for them to do. Differences between the owners and workers and how they want to achieve leads to differences in the workplace. Also, Marx attacked capitalism with his theory of alienation in which workers lacks the feeling of existence and control as they stay attached to produce goods like automatons. To sum up, a capitalistic workforce produces overall greater unhappiness to society as workers and owners tends to be uncooperative due to their differences of pursuits. After all, society as a whole benefits when everyone works together to better the world.
Capitalism leads to greater disparities in income and unequal access to opportunities. One feature of capitalism is the profit motive in which people are motivated to act for economic gain. Individuals are free to act according to their economic pursuits and it is their interest that is the utmost importance. The issue within a capitalistic society is unequal access to opportunities. Not everyone has a fair, equal chance to succeed