: Is the social darwinism that capitalism espouses "right" or "moral?" Why or why not?
1) Capitalists do not advocate 'social darwinism'. They advocate 'product darwinism', i.e. if you want me to buy your product/idea/system, make it worth my while. Fascism advocates social darwinism, i.e. you die, because I am strong and you are weak. There is a significant difference. Capitalists will neglect the poor, because it is not profitable to help them. Fascists will slaughter them, simply on general principle (weeding out the weak, and all that). Socialism advocates co-operation, but it lies (as observed in practice), in which case it is inevitably called 'state capitalism' (usually, once the 'easy loot' runs out).
2) This system is neutral ethically, regardless of what Rand might say. I may invest in a school, with little interest in profit, concentrating on making the venture self sufficient - or I might bid on a gas chamber contract, trying to get dibs on the slave labor made available in the bargain. Capitalism is a tool for managing an economy, and like all tools, the ethics are in the usage.
3) Capitalism, as it is practiced in the U.S. and Europe, is highly ethical, comparitive to the standards of the world. A combination of investment and interest in social concerns have made the world look to Americans and their allies to solve the world's problems. More often than not, the vast wealth made available by this system makes it possible for America to make actual progress against issues long thought unsolvable, such as world hunger, war, government persecution of civilians, poverty, illiteracy, etc.
Does that answer your question?