As I said in my previous article, not only the capitalist economic system requires no moral, but also it prevents any sense of morality. Without rectifier set myself up as wrong, I just here trying to understand why it is so.

It is interesting to note that the economic world is also the only place where this action is appropriate. In politics itself, even the appearance of the individual vote dilution does not prevent the feeling of duty or morality.

The business world has this peculiarity that prevents any trace of our work and, perhaps worse, it installs a very great distance with its possible consequences (dismissal in a company,

to take an extreme case). It prevents any corporation by a disappearance of reality, a distance or impossible to recognize. 

I would compare these observations to an analysis by Hannah Arendt, about totalitarianism. I know that a comparison with Nazism or fascism is risky, because it is often accompanied by an excess in the subject. But far from trying to identify collectively the economic system to a totalitarian system, which would be a profound mistake, I just want to emphasize the similarity in characteristics resulting from these systems.

First, the requirement of return, in a broad sense covering spend less and earn more, acting as an ideology: economic system is characterized as mere "logic of an idea" (H. Arendt, totalitarian system Le Seuil al. Points, p. 295). Hence the widespread feeling that the system has no control and can not be shifted: such termination shall be accepted, and the refuse would deny this reality, then it is only the refusal of the logic of the idea which governs the system.

Arendt describes a situation "in onion, which allows an individual in the organization's totalitarian never be in touch with reality. She described a structure which "absorbs the shock:" They are so well protected against the reality of non-totalitarian world "(p.132). The economic actor is not protected from the reality of the consequences of his actions, because he can not even apprehend?

Above, I indicated that the business world today is such that any sense of moral was evacuated he lost the conditions of possibility of responsibility for his actions. But Arendt wrote about the totalitarian system: "Nobody has ever experienced a situation where he should be responsible for his own actions" (p. 144) and speaks of "murder the man in the person morality "(p. 265). In the economic world, the moral dimension of the person fainted and was unable to find his place.

Finally, what about the analysis of ideology that prepares everyone "to play both the role of executioner than the victim? The economic system, a requirement of return, do not it is the theater? For example, I am not the executioner of my national economy, where I benefited from low prices of imported products? And am I not also a victim of this approach because I saw myself under the threat of redundancy?

Can not finish without addressing the issue of ethical trade and ethical finance: the moral sense does not it reinvests and the economy? In any case, the fact that it took a new term seems to be precisely the mark of the absence of moral feeling in the normal functioning of the economy.

For it must be remembered that ethical trade is to reverse the operating mode of the economic sphere. This character against nature seems to me essential, in that it may mean he can not be integrated in a comprehensive manner.

Besides, what would the impact of a generalization? What would a world economy where all actions are legal? We may buy its tomatoes after a debate: "I just find more than you earn more, so I'll buy the most expensive. Such a world economic moral only if it sustainable? "