Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
How defending capitalism is like recycling
How defending capitalism is like recycling
Mar 18, 2025 11:22 AM

Each week my neighbors and I engage in a curious ethical ritual. On Wednesday morning before we leave for work we set outside our doors an artifact that expresses our obligation to the welfare of future generations. We call these objects recycling bins.

Recycling is one example of an action that we take in the present to benefit a group in the future. The earth has enough space and resources that all current generations could be extremely wasteful without having a noticeably detrimental effect on the global population. Future generations, however, would likely suffer if we were wantonly careless in our use of resources. For this reason the recycling of waste products is viewed as an important, albeit minor, act of personal virtue.

Although most people probably do not need to be persuaded that we have moral obligations to future generations, it would be useful to examine what form such an argument would take. Philosopher Jim Nolt outlines it as follows:

1. We have obligations to all currently living people.

2. Future people are in no morally relevant respect different from currently living people.

3. We have obligations to all future people.

To the argument Nolt adds:

The moral irrelevance of time of birth is perhaps best understood by the realization that we are future people—to our predecessors. The distinction between past and future is, after all, not ultimate and absolute, but relative to temporal perspective. In that respect, it is like the designation, “foreigner,” which is relative to geographical perspective. Who counts as a foreigner depends on the country we inhabit. Likewise, who counts as a future person depends on the time we inhabit. All people are foreigners to people of countries other than their own. Likewise, all people belong to the future generations of their predecessors. [emphasis in original]

If this argument is true, then we have obligations (e.g., don’t despoil the planet) to future groups (e.g., people living in AD 2056). Many of us believe environmental stewardship is one of this class of obligations. Could defending free enterprise (i.e., capitalism) be another? As Arnold Kling argues,

One of the more under-appreciated arguments in favor of capitalism is that future generations ought to be counted as winners. That is, regardless of the proportion of winners and losers from capitalism in America in say, 1800, economic growth since then has made winners out of modern Americans. The dynamics of capitalism are such that, looking forward a few generations, the proportion of winners from economic growth approaches 100 percent, and the proportion of losers approaches zero. That is, economic growth will make nearly everyone will be better off several generations from pared to where they would be without any economic growth.

Imagine if we were to travel back in time to America in 1848 and had a discussion about the benefits of the free market system with a proponent of “scientific socialism.” If we were to exclude future generations from consideration, the socialists might be able to make a stronger case for why under their economic system there may be more current winners than losers. But by that same reasoning, we could claim panies in the mid-1800s who were dumping toxic chemicals into rivers and streams were creating more winners (i.e., industrialists and their workers) than losers, since the effects of the pollution would mostly impact people who were not yet born.

Similarly, if we only look at the people who are currently alive when we attempt to determine who wins/loses under capitalism, we overlook the largest group that will benefit the most: future generations.

This does not mean, of course, that we should discount the negative effect on the people who currently lose out in a free enterprise system. We can’t ignore the neighbors who exist today solely to benefit our neighbors who will exist in the future. But when considering the effects of an economic system, we ought toconsider how it affects all people—both the living and those who will liveafter we are gone.

If we believe we have an obligation torecycle our soda cans to help future people, we should recognize we have an even greater obligation to preserve and pass on an economic system that will make them better off.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Subsidizing Subsidiarity: How Conservatives Failed New Orleans
This week marks the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina making landfall on the Gulf Coast. As always happens when remembering suchignominious events, we look back in hindsight to attempt to learn what could have been done differently. If we’re being honest with ourselves, we conservatives will admit that we share some of the blame for the disaster—just not in the way many of us realize. The colossal failures in leadership in the wake of Hurricane Katrina proved once again that,...
Can Capitalism Save the Arts?
Capitalism is routinely castigated as an enemy of the arts, with much of the finger-pointing bent toward monsters of profit and efficiency. Other critiques take aim at more systemic features, fearing that the type of industrialization that markets sometimes tend toward will inevitably detach artists from healthy social contexts, sucking dry any potential for flourishing as a result. But what if the opposite is true? I offer the argument over at The Federalist. Free economies introduce their own unique challenges...
The Moral Dimension of Work
“The world is not a parsimonious place, in spite of the dogmas of the ecologists,” says James V. Schall in this week’s Acton Commentary. Our most unsettling economic problems are actually not economic but moral—moral ones that cannot be simply passed on from generation to generation. They need to be chosen and internalized by each person in each generation at the risk of deflecting material goods from their proper purposes. Work likewise is not exclusively for its own sake. Rather...
Psalm 19 and Human Flourishing
The mission of the Acton Institute is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles. We seek to articulate a vision of society that is both free and virtuous, the end of which is human flourishing. That phrase—“human flourishing”—has e such a buzzword, though, that it’s in danger of losing any real meaning. As Scott Swain says, “Due to its widespread usage across our culture, its susceptibility to multiple meanings, and its...
Catholicism’s tension with the Enlightenment
In a recent article for The Stream, Acton’s Director of Research, Samuel Gregg asks the question, “Is Catholicism Compatible with the American Experiment?” Gregg cites an article by political philosopher Patrick Deneen who suggested that “the main argument among American Catholics will concern the relationship of modern liberal democracies–and, at a deeper level, the American Founding–with Catholicism.” Gregg doesn’t necessarily disagree with this assertion, but argues that it “reaches further back to the early modern period often called the Enlightenment.”...
Creation Care and Catholic Social Teaching
Pope Francis recently declared September 1 as the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, an annual day of prayer begun by the Orthodox Church in 1989. In conjunction with the event, Catholic Relief Services and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have released “Care for God’s Creation,” the first of a seven-part video series on Catholic social teaching. (Via: Crux) ...
Rev. Sirico on Francis’ ‘Year of Mercy’
Pope Francis recently announced a “year of mercy,” making it easier for the Catholic Church to forgive women for having abortions. Acton’s President and Co-founder Robert Sirico went on WSJ Live to discuss this. Watch below: ...
Acton Institute Selected as Templeton Freedom Award Finalist for Poverty Inc. Documentary
The Acton Institute has been named as one of six finalists for this year’s $100,000 Templeton Freedom Award for its documentary film, Poverty, Inc. The announcement of the finalists was made Monday by the Atlas Network, a Washington-based organization that advances the work of market-oriented public policy organizations all over the world. The winner will be selected Nov. 12 in New York. Atlas’ description of Poverty, Inc. says the documentary “provides prehensive perspective on the issue, giving voice to charity...
Video: Wayne Grudem And Barry Asmus On A Solution To The Poverty Of Nations
So far, 2015 has given us our busiest Acton Lecture Series ever, and we’re pleased to share more of it with you today on the PowerBlog. Back on April 16, Acton had the privilegeof hosting Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus, who spoke on the topic of the book they jointly authored,The Poverty of Nations: A Sustainable Solution. First, the bios: Wayne Grudem is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary; he is the author or co-author of...
Court Rules March for Life Qualifies for Abortifacient Mandate Exemption Based on Moral, Not Just Religious, Objections
Imagine if the government were to tell an organization dedicated to veganism that, because of a new mandate, they must purchase a meat platter to serve at their monthly meetings and that the chair cushions in their conference room must be made of leather. Appalled by this governmental intrusion, the vegans ask to be excluded from the mandate since none of their members wish to eat bologna while sitting on dead cow skin. They also point out that a group...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved