My thought experiment for considering the moral limits of capitalism: If producing Soylent Green were legal and profitable, would there be actors willing to produce and sell it?
If you answer no, see: Philip Morris, Lockheed, Beretta, etc.
If you answer no, see: Philip Morris, Lockheed, Beretta, etc.
There is a lot of evidence that organized crime is a substitute for opportunities in legitimate society, so that example is perhaps not applicable. The opioid crisis caused by US pharma may be a bigger and better example.
But yes, supply will provide every legal thing in demand. Indeed, that is how the invisible hand is "supposed" to work.
I could just as easily posit easy international travel, world trade, mass media, democracy, and many other things as more effective than h-bombs for bringing about the relative peace of the late 20th/early 21st century.
Those particular things have the added benefit that they generally don't risk the side-effect of world annihilation.
Yes, it's challenging to answer with certainty.
Though "easy international travel, world trade, mass media, democracy, etc." were not invented at almost the precise moment that all-out large scale wars ("world wars") on Earth ended.
There are moral implications to building weapons of annihilation in exchange for wealth.
Also, Lockheed's role in Manhattan Project era nuclear weapons development was non-existent. And the delivery aircraft was manufactured by Boeing.
For examples you might have been better choosing cases where the production rather than use by customers is problematic.
Radium paint and dials, asbestos, prior to 20th century regulations food and medicine fraud and adulteration so endemic that finding just the correct product was almost impossible. Which is what led those regulations in the first place.
Capitalism is what it is - an utterly amoral engine of profit. Without regulation and legal frameworks it will create slaves, destroy the environment, kill and maim people - there's almost no limit.
What the OP's anecdote illustrates is that there's also a deep cultural issue at play.
Many in the South abhorred slavery and segregation, but had no choice but to follow the law.
Killing and maiming people has been a State activity since they've existed. It's one of the things they're very efficient at.
Slavery was only ended at the insistence of laws put in place by the state.
Make no mistake, Slavery was an intended feature. Not a bug, nor a result of a state gone wild. It was considered part of their economy and part of their free market.
But I'd like to examine it with more nuance: Does it vary across time or across place? Is it different than the culture of the people from which the company emerged (e.g., how do private American citizens behave differently than large American companies)? Most importantly, on what factors does good and bad corporate behavior depend? My guess is that some of this research has been done - I'd love some pointers to it.
[0] A recent headline: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-israel...