Unregulated capitalism is amoral

"Amoral" is the term I used to begin this debate. Amoral is a term which is necessary to the understanding of my point, and yet my opponent has ignored its meaning from the onset. Judgments can be made against people for being immoral, and they may be praised for being moral, but there is yet a third option: amoral. We use this term when a given entity operates without a set of moral standards. This is not the same as being immoral, because the given entity may not purposefully, or meaningfully intend harm, and yet they may cause it. Here are some examples that I hope will tease out the meaning of amoral, as opposed to immoral: We can say that Hitler was immoral because he was dedicated to a program of genocide. He purposefully, and with conscious intent directed the deaths of millions of Jews and other people he found distasteful. It wasn't a lack of care that caused the deaths of millions of people, it was a hatred and violence perpetrated willingly against them. When BP spilled oil into the Gulf of Mexico lives were lost, there was great destruction to the environment, and resources of that area. Many people lost their livelihoods and suffered as a result – but no one would say that BP was equivalent to Hitler. BP's actions were amoral, in that they didn't care enough to prevent the harm they caused – but we cannot say that they intended it willfully. When Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge directed the killing of over one million Cambodians in the early 1970s, we can speak of the immorality of this tragic event. Millions were purposefully killed, in a dedicated reign of terror and murder that destroyed an entire generation. Pol Pot was immoral; he acted with a purposeful violence against the people of Cambodia. In the plainest speech possible: he meant to kill them. When Wall Street traders speculate on the price of food and it causes famine in Africa, the famine is an indirect consequence of that speculation. It is not that Wall Street traders begin their day with the goal of causing famine in Africa – they begin their day with the goal of making money. The famine in Africa is a side effect, one that they do not take into account because their actions are amoral. Herein lies the confusion my opponent is struggling with. Like many people, he is unable to conceptualize beyond polarities. Just because something is not moral, doesn't mean it is immoral (it could be amoral). Just because something is not white, doesn't mean it is black (it could be gray, or pink). Just because it is not light, doesn't mean it is dark (it could be twilight), and just because someone is not happy, doesn't mean they are sad (they could be baffled, nostalgic, or bemused). In every case there is a spectrum of possibility, and the world is full of finer shades of meaning. I understand that many people long for the simplicity of an either-or choice – but that is not what I set this debate up for. I was hoping to dissect and analyze the complexities of capitalism. I was hoping my opponent would strike at the true intent of my statement, which is that capitalism is in need of regulation because it is amoral, yes, AMORAL, not in possession of a right or wrong motivation. Capitalism's motivation is the acquisition of wealth, which I hold to be neither moral, nor immoral. I work to acquire wealth, so do ants and squirrels, we are not immoral by seeking what we need. I hold that capitalism is a force; it represents the codification of human striving into an economic system. The system in and of itself can be regulated or mediated to prevent harm and encourage good. This is what I am proposing. Comparisons, analogies, and metaphors may seems vague or difficult to understand for my opponent, but they are very useful for explaining concepts in the abstract – I encourage him to make a deeper and more thoughtful reading of what I have said. I did not engage with any of his points because he snags himself on my definitions at the outset. To win against my resolution, my opponent would have to prove that capitalism is either completely immoral, and should be done away with. Or, that it is moral and does not need regulation. To prove that it was completely immoral, he would have to show that Wall Street set out to collapse the world economy, that BP meant to spill oil in the Gulf, that businessmen hope to destroy their local market economies, and that mining companies are made to kill miners etc. This is just not the case. Harm is a by product of capitalism, not the intent. Further my opponent would have to engage my positive arguments that capitalism can be a force for good as well. He has not done that. I stand resolved that capitalism is neither moral nor immoral, but a force of human nature which needs to be controlled and regulated so that it can operate for the benefit of society.