Capitalism and Formal Causality

While for Smith, Profit-seeking is a normative principle, according to other Capitalists, it is a descriptive principle, i. e. signifying that Profit-seeking is the fundamental behavioral instinct in humans.  One challenge to the latter position, but not the former, is the apparent existence of sympathetic instincts, which Smith recognizes, as well as the parental instinct to nurture and protect a child, recognized by many people, and evident in most other species.  Another potential counter-example is to both principles, presenting a more radical challenge.  As Kant recognizes, at least some artists, and possibly other agents in other endeavors, are motivated by Genius to create, often overriding more pecuniary impulses, examples of which are not adequately repudiated by cases of 'artists' who produce works simply in order to sell them.  Now, the artist is driven to shape material; hence, their fundamental impulse is Formal Causality.  Furthermore, in the creative process, an 'end' is simply the last moment of a continuum, e. g. the final note of a song, the final dab of paint on a canvas, etc.  On that basis, a Means-End interpretation of artistic behavior is an abstraction.  But, both versions of the Profit-motive are Consequentialist.  Hence, neither of them is applicable to artistic behavior, while conversely, each can be shown to be arbitrarily derived from a Formal Causality pattern, i. e. with the attainment of Profit merely the final and not necessarily privileged moment of a continual process.  Thus, Capitalism is not as well-grounded as either of its types of proponent take it to be.