Yossarian, I appreciate your zeal for contemporary economics, but capitalism hasn't run it's course yet. And if you look at history carefully, you'll see that everything indeed runs it's course. I certainly appreciate the pragmatism of seeking Locke's ideal, and certainly don't condone anything as radical and failed as "each to his own abilities." However, the most sustaining and pervaisive spiritual perspectives (moral perspectives) point quite the opposite direction of self interest. This despite our prevailing Puritan model.
And once again, I was not suggesting that to be moral you have to predict the future. Failure to bear in mind reasonable consequences, or to ignore the effect one's indulgences has on members of a community is neglect. Most of the time the benevolence or malevolence of our actions is easily predictable - we're usually just too preoccupied to notice or care.
Understand that I'm not arguing here - I'm presenting a valid and confirmed perspective that most americans simply aren't used to hearing. I just think sometimes we rush toward material goals with with too much certainty in our motives. Sometimes the result being the untimely demise of a perfectly good place to live. If you'd like to explore this tangent more, perhaps we should pick it up on another thread in Misc?
Oh, and as far as "amoral" goes: I'm sure this is someones specific tidy conceptualization and definition that was read in a college course on business ethics or some such thing. Why then is "neglect" of human life punisheable by law? Law being a much lower moral understanding than simply doing the right thing.