In his Genealogy of Morals, 2nd Essay (8), Nietzsche writes: “The feeling of guilt, of personal obligation, had its origin, as we saw, in the oldest and most primitive personal relationship, that between buyer and seller, creditor and debtor: it was here that one person first encountered another person, that one person first measured himself against another.”
…Buyer and seller, creditor and debtor… aren’t we discussing our favorite subject again here: the faith and practice of capitalism? It is apparently not enough for the human animal to seek the obvious advantages of a communal living, gravitating him inevitably toward socialism. A mixed basket, that’s how I have called this compromise of coexistence between socialism and capitalism within human society. (Mind you, I am using the word capitalism in its most benign meaning, as private enterprise and the market, but I would never give the same benign status to speculation and financial manipulation, where the goal is personal enrichment with no regard at all for the economic interests of one’s own nation and for the wellbeing and prosperity of one’s fellow men.) The two practicalities of human existence, socialism and capitalism, contrast and struggle, and yet, coexist with each other. Now, which of them is “moral” and which is “immoral”: socialism-communism or capitalism? Asking this question in this fashion, I am hoping to expose the absurdity of ascribing morality to either or both of these social practices. Is it moral to buy or sell, to lend and borrow, to use money at all? The answer must be obvious to any Christian, who is commanded to distinguish between God and Caesar. Socialism is obviously more acceptable to God, but capitalism is a permissible compromise with “Caesar.” Now, we all know that God is Good. Does that mean that Caesar is Bad? Non sequitur! Then does it mean that Caesar is Good? Not at all! Isn’t this a contradiction? Not at all! The answer is that whether our Caesar is a paragon of morality or a vile scoundrel has nothing to do with it. The American Democrats do not stop paying their taxes when a Republican Administration is in power, and vice versa. My argument may seem bizarre, but only for a moment. Yes, we are talking of apples and oranges. If morality is apples, practicality is oranges. Economics ought to be to morality what Caesar is to God.
Returning to Nietzsche’s argument, how does the feeling of guilt enter the picture? Perhaps, because of the moral compromise between good business (see my Good Business entry) and ethical conduct, which often find themselves in a contradiction? I will explore this line further and in much greater depth later on. But in the meantime here is more from Nietzsche:
“Setting prices, determining values, contriving equivalencies, exchanging--- these preoccupied the earliest thinking of man to so great an extent that, in a certain sense, they constitute thinking as such.” (Genealogy, 2nd Essay, Section 8).
Normal business activity, which Nietzsche is talking about here, exists, like basic science, outside the realm of morality. It is only when the feeling of guilt caused by his dishonest or unfair business practice causes the perpetrator to justify his dishonesty in moral terms that “capitalist morals” emerge, ushering in capitalism at its worst, that is, as Caesar in God’s clothing.
(…To be continued in my next entry The Mouse That Roared.)
…Buyer and seller, creditor and debtor… aren’t we discussing our favorite subject again here: the faith and practice of capitalism? It is apparently not enough for the human animal to seek the obvious advantages of a communal living, gravitating him inevitably toward socialism. A mixed basket, that’s how I have called this compromise of coexistence between socialism and capitalism within human society. (Mind you, I am using the word capitalism in its most benign meaning, as private enterprise and the market, but I would never give the same benign status to speculation and financial manipulation, where the goal is personal enrichment with no regard at all for the economic interests of one’s own nation and for the wellbeing and prosperity of one’s fellow men.) The two practicalities of human existence, socialism and capitalism, contrast and struggle, and yet, coexist with each other. Now, which of them is “moral” and which is “immoral”: socialism-communism or capitalism? Asking this question in this fashion, I am hoping to expose the absurdity of ascribing morality to either or both of these social practices. Is it moral to buy or sell, to lend and borrow, to use money at all? The answer must be obvious to any Christian, who is commanded to distinguish between God and Caesar. Socialism is obviously more acceptable to God, but capitalism is a permissible compromise with “Caesar.” Now, we all know that God is Good. Does that mean that Caesar is Bad? Non sequitur! Then does it mean that Caesar is Good? Not at all! Isn’t this a contradiction? Not at all! The answer is that whether our Caesar is a paragon of morality or a vile scoundrel has nothing to do with it. The American Democrats do not stop paying their taxes when a Republican Administration is in power, and vice versa. My argument may seem bizarre, but only for a moment. Yes, we are talking of apples and oranges. If morality is apples, practicality is oranges. Economics ought to be to morality what Caesar is to God.
Returning to Nietzsche’s argument, how does the feeling of guilt enter the picture? Perhaps, because of the moral compromise between good business (see my Good Business entry) and ethical conduct, which often find themselves in a contradiction? I will explore this line further and in much greater depth later on. But in the meantime here is more from Nietzsche:
“Setting prices, determining values, contriving equivalencies, exchanging--- these preoccupied the earliest thinking of man to so great an extent that, in a certain sense, they constitute thinking as such.” (Genealogy, 2nd Essay, Section 8).
Normal business activity, which Nietzsche is talking about here, exists, like basic science, outside the realm of morality. It is only when the feeling of guilt caused by his dishonest or unfair business practice causes the perpetrator to justify his dishonesty in moral terms that “capitalist morals” emerge, ushering in capitalism at its worst, that is, as Caesar in God’s clothing.
(…To be continued in my next entry The Mouse That Roared.)
No comments:
Post a Comment