It leads to people who may or may not be objectively more worthy getting ahead of the game, due to their egotistical or charming nature or simple nepotism. However this isn't necessarily a bad thing, a complete reliance on planned objectivity to dictate who does and doesn't go far in life fails to consider the real-life social conventions and doctrines that underpin our society. If we relied on this, we would live in a sterile and overtly sensitive to offence world that benefits nobody in the long run. So while capitalism could be deemed unethical due to its freedom to appoint people based on overly subjective grounds to certain positions, it ultimately allows the real social doctrines of society to prevail, and many of these are sound and appreciated by most.

Capitalism is simply a sociological force. It is much like splitting the atom. Regulated and controlled, it can be steered to become a nearly limitless power source. Left to its own devices, it is the most destructive force mankind has unleashed. But the splitting of the atom itself has no moral stance. Splitting more atoms does not make one country more unethical than another. Left to its own devices, capitalism is a rampaging force of destruction. War profiteers starting wars and arming both sides. Hiring armies to attack towns then demanding the citizens pay for protection. Deforesting and polluting the environment because pollution and destruction don't have a documented dollar cost figure. Letting workers die because hauling off bodies costs less than reducing productive hours. But regulated, it has pretty much single-handedly invented the middle class. It provides technological advancement that is usually only found in war, but without the war. Tons of taxed trade is essentially the motor that drives the public socialized policies I am also a fan of. Most of the major advances in quality of life come down to capitalism. That being said, I for one hope we can find a better force in the near future. One in which quality of life, equality, and environmental conservation are not so mutually exclusive.

**Capitalism as an economic system is by no means unethical since competition and private ownership of the means of production do not necessarily harm workers.** The definition of capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of the means of production, thereby allowing competition, free market, property rights, and capital accumulation. The most common objection against capitalism is that, without regulation from the government, workers can easily be exploited. To counter this, it is necessary to acknowledge that in a capitalistic economy, a worker's entry into the workforce is purely voluntary and his wage is determined by the free market. It is true that a worker himself has no control over his wage or the product of his labor, but even so his wage is not arbitrarily determined: it is still determined by the supply-demand in the factor market. Therefore, the charge that this characteristic of capitalism is immoral makes the faulty assumption that workers are arbitrarily exploited, when they are merely working for the free market. For example, suppose worker A works at Starbucks and worker B works at Peet's Coffee. Starbucks has been more popular than Peet's Coffee so A receives more wage than B, even if they both work hard equally. Is this immoral? That the free market, instead of the worker themselves, determines the wage is completely natural and by no means unethical: if your labor produces products that are more popular, you receive more wage. What is wrong with that? Voluntary exchange is a central characteristic of capitalism. It ensures that one's product of labor has an objective basis of value evaluation. How do I know how much my labor is worth? Just trade it with someone else and see if they want it more than they wish to keep their money. From a utilitarian perspective, this is by no means immoral since both the buyer and seller are benefited by the exchange and are happier.

**Capitalism motivates unethical decision-making, including decisions that will end civilisation.** - Capitalism creates a wealth gap that can’t be justified or deserved. In 2020, Oxfam found that [the world’s billionaires have more wealth than 60% of the planet's population.](https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world.) While it can incentivise, capitalism does not fairly ‘reward’ people for their work, as differences in income have huge implications for future generations. People can inherit wealth and opportunity from their parents, or poor living conditions and lack of opportunity. - Capitalism rewards profit, which actively encourages and enables unethical decision-making. Companies neglect ethical responsibilities when it comes to looking after workers and the planet, chasing profit above all else. Take the [unethical labour conditions and pollution caused by fast fashion](https://medium.com/@amlani.puja/why-consumer-capitalism-is-the-real-problem-in-fashion-industry-eecd8d9f463f) as one good case study. - Capitalism does drive innovation. But what ethical purpose is that innovation serving? As we are currently driving our planet to destruction, it seems that increased innovation alone cannot redeem it as a system. - According to environmentalist George Monbiot, [capitalism cannot rescue us from the climate crisis that it has created.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_s1sAagTz4) This fact alone should justify the statement 'capitalism in unethical.'

Capitalism has lifted more people out of abject poverty than any other system in the history of the world. It has led to the richest, most prosperous civilizations in history.