Resumo de Is Capitalism Ethical? - ?????? ???? ???????

The book "Is capitalism ethical?" states the points of view of some french elite towards the experiences of the materialistic and spiritual worlds. It sees that it is not one or everybody's creation, but it is a historical path in which mankind is envolved. The book warns from unethical capitalism which is a recipe for the collapse of civilization, for it lost its strong rival, communism, which had provided negative justification for its existence. It is because capitalist societies can't tolerate emptiness that they search for enemies contradicting them, it appears to some that these enemies are the muslims. The return to morals does'nt mean talking about an ethical return, people now are more virtuous than those in the last generation, the return to ethics won't end because people are truely more righteous, but because ethics is more and more widespread, a topic for thier conversation in which to broader assumptions they are talking about it in a magnitude of its absence from the nature of human behaviour. Politics seemed to be everything twenty years ago, and good politics is the only important ethic in our eyes, but in the eyes of many youths today, ethics is everything, and good ethics in their eyes is sufficient politics to a considerable extent. Ethics and politics are two different things, it is not permitted to mix between them, because this mix up will spoil the principals of both, we need them both, as we need to differentiate between them, we need ethics to cancel politics, and we also need politics that could not be cancelled ethically. Something developing is broadened and established, and you could say "spiritual generation" or a generation which develops the spiritual issue which we thought to have been abolished decades ago. What is the spiritual issue? If we intended exaggerating it simply we would say it is what is correct and what is false. The ethical issue is what is good and what is evil, and what is humane and what is unhumane. So the spiritual issue is the issue of the meaning, that is the issue of no meaning, and it seems that this issue was in dispute for years, took precedence in the hearts and minds of youths who were involved in other things other than football and love stories or an academical pretence. What is the literary work that was very successful in France in the nineties? It was the work of an unknown writer, from one of the third world countries, a book with a concealed meaning for a title, with no sex, and not a line of violence, and this book had remained a best seller for more than a year. Things as they are, blueloo coblo readers, know very well the cotent of the book, it is not more than a tale of a spiritual search. If this book was published ten years ago it would'nt have made such an impact, and more likely nobody would remember it twenty years later, apart from it came out at an accompaning time, which contributed to its success, exaggerated to some extent. That was the purpose. If the book was mediocre (if it wasn't a literary prize that some had prized, at the same time it wasn,t a worthless book as a number of parisian academics who found pleasure in degrading other people's successes described it), plainly it appears to be something of a social nature rather than a litarary one and it is wrong in this sense, one of the famous teachers said:"thirty years ago, I was talking to my students, to let them concentrate I talk about politics, and to make them laugh I talk about religion, nowadays it is visa versa". Has the fall of the Soviet Union and the communist camp have any relation to the return of ethics? During the years of the cold war, and after in peace time, capitalism was granted, to the liberal east, to the free world, as it was called, so it could find an excuse for its being, in an ethical point of view, and from its conflict against communism. Those who saw communism as pure evil wanted capitalism prevaille and to fight against this evil they concluded. Breshn't there anymore but Bin Laden was, these answers are well founded no doubt, the difference here is the topic, what Breshnev stood for is a subtitude to the social, political and ecconomical of capitalism, which is communism with its marxist meaning , as for Ben Laden he doesn,t stand for any of these. For islam doesn't forbid private ownership, nor production and interchange, nor the freedom of the markets, nor hired help, the three ores of capitalism. In another sense what Ben Laden stands for is not the alternative to social and ecconomical capitalism, but he stands for other principals and for other symbols and for other concepts and other ethics even another civilization.

Resumos Relacionados