Chapter ǴǶ: Kirzner on the Morality of Capitalist Profit ȃȀȀreason alone. Part of the rationale of an ethical code is that it would be
impossible for the law to codify and enforce all desirable character traits
and all desirable lines of behavior in all imaginable and unimaginable cir-
cumstances. Ļe logic of an ethical code requires adhering to its spirit
rather than to minutely specified rules; it requires a certain flexibility in
its application. People’s moral obligations toward one another depend on
many circumstances, including what kind and degree of solidarity or loy-
alty among them are appropriate.
In the impersonal market relations of the nationwide and worldwide
“great society” or “extended order” (as HayekȀȈȇȈcalls it), no special
solidarity or loyalty is appropriate—nothing beyond honorable dealing
and refraining from lying, cheating, stealing, and coercion. Ļe situation
is different within relatively small and intimate groups—family, friends,
and perhaps enthusiasts devoted to some shared cause. In such groups,
the attitudes of solidarity and altruism, presumably inherited biologically
from the prehistoric days of life in small hunter-gatherer bands, are more
appropriate. Even or especially within an impersonal extended order, the
intimacy available within small, close-knit groups has great psychological
value. Within them, emulating market behavior, pursuing narrow self-
interest, and insisting on cost/benefit calculations and careful measure-
ments of quid pro quo would be destructive. Such market-oriented behav-
ior would subvert the solidarity and loyalty appropriate to such groups and
would tend to “crush” them (HayekȀȈȇȈ, p.Ȁȇ).
Venturers on an expedition through a hazardous desert, like explorers
in Antarctica, are in a sense colleagues, even if they happen not to belong
to the same organized group, or so it seems to me. Ļey owe a certain
extra respect, solidarity, and loyalty to one another. Character traits con-
ducive to recognizing this special obligation are praiseworthy on broadly
the same utilitarian grounds that underpin ethical principles in general. To
turn the adventure into a zero-sum struggle, to “race ahead” for a chance
to exploit one’s colleagues, manifests antisocial traits. To condone such
behavior in the name of the ethics of capitalism would ill serve both capi-
talism and ethics.
In another case, also, Kirzner implies some unease about the moral
legitimacy of profit. He repeatedly (e.g.,ȀȈȇȈ, pp.ȃȈ–Ȅǿ) mentions Paul
Samuelson’s example of a commodity speculator who reaps a big profit by
learning about a crop failure just minutes before other traders do. True
enough, speculators perform a socially useful function in acquiring infor-
mation relevant to the timing of the consumption of scarce goods and in