3 ms·

Depending on context, it can be important. Too often, corporate behavior is explained by saying that the “only responsibility” of a corporation is to “maximize

Depending on context, it can be important. Too often, corporate behavior is explained by saying that the “only responsibility” of a corporation is to “maximize shareholder value”. The words “only responsibility” are not descriptive, but prescriptive, meant to end debate about the morality of an action. In those contexts, it's useful to know that this is a fiction and a debating trick, not a description of law, natural or human.

jpttsn 9y ago
If I say the responsibility of a corporation is to replant the rainforest, or to expand human wisdom, or to entertain the public with a compelling narrative of underdogs beating titans, then I'm clearly just expressing my opinion. The question of what a company "ought to do" is obviously a question of values, not fact. It's just tiresome to rebut opinions with "you can't prove that!" or "does the law say so?" Of course there's no natural or human law that proves blue is my favorite color. So what?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >It's just tiresome to rebut opinions with "you can't prove that!" or "does the law say so?" My original comment is a rebutting of popular opinion with law, is it not?
  - jpttsn 9y ago
    I don't think so; you're rebutting a popular opinion with the absence of law as your argument. Like arguing that "there's no law that says the main character in a movie should be relatable." Technically, of course, you're right. Yet I suspect stressing that fact is a straw man argument. Who really believes companies are legally obligated to maximize shareholder value?
- s73ver 9y ago
  At the same time, it's also incredibly tiring to hear shitty behavior by companies excused by saying "shareholder value!" as if that excuses all of it. The people running those companies are still adults, who are still fully responsible for their actions. They should not be excused by something that doesn't actually exist.

jpttsn 9y ago

If I say the responsibility of a corporation is to replant the rainforest, or to expand human wisdom, or to entertain the public with a compelling narrative of underdogs beating titans, then I'm clearly just expressing my opinion. The question of what a company "ought to do" is obviously a question of values, not fact. It's just tiresome to rebut opinions with "you can't prove that!" or "does the law say so?" Of course there's no natural or human law that proves blue is my favorite color. So what?

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>It's just tiresome to rebut opinions with "you can't prove that!" or "does the law say so?" My original comment is a rebutting of popular opinion with law, is it not?
- jpttsn 9y ago
  I don't think so; you're rebutting a popular opinion with the absence of law as your argument. Like arguing that "there's no law that says the main character in a movie should be relatable." Technically, of course, you're right. Yet I suspect stressing that fact is a straw man argument. Who really believes companies are legally obligated to maximize shareholder value?
s73ver 9y ago
At the same time, it's also incredibly tiring to hear shitty behavior by companies excused by saying "shareholder value!" as if that excuses all of it. The people running those companies are still adults, who are still fully responsible for their actions. They should not be excused by something that doesn't actually exist.