4 ms·

It seems obvious to me that companies are inherently amoral. I'm not saying this is good, but does it really take a full blown sociopath to prioritize business

It seems obvious to me that companies are inherently amoral. I'm not saying this is good, but does it really take a full blown sociopath to prioritize business goals over the repercussions of firing someone? I don't run a business, maybe I don't want to with this in mind.

supreme_sublime 9y ago
It doesn't seem like the "business goals" were why the author was fired, I'm not sure where you get that from. It is certainly possible that these companies simply couldn't afford to pay them. So it was a choice between firing them or being financially insolvent. I don't really know how firing one (or a few) people is less desirable over the entire company going under and everyone losing their jobs.
WillPostForFood 9y ago
Companies are inherently non moral, non sentient, legal constructs. Any sense of morality comes from the people in the company, and they can be highly moral, immoral, or anything in between.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  There's an interesting argument[1] that the behavior of corporations can be very accurately modeled as artificial intelligences that use humans as computing resources. If you accept that argument, it is no longer accurate to say that morality comes only from the people that make up the company, a company has its own agency that isn't just the sum of all of the decisions made by the individuals who make up the corporation. [1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-you-broke-the-future.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-you...
  - jpm_sd 9y ago
    Yes. The paperclip maximizers are already here.
pixelbath 9y ago
The primary goal of a business is to make its shareholders money. When you add public trading of corporate stock into the mix, you're essentially cementing that idea into how the business is run.
drharby 9y ago
It is a matter of case law you prioritize a business over the people for a public co. Ford v dodge bros

supreme_sublime 9y ago

It doesn't seem like the "business goals" were why the author was fired, I'm not sure where you get that from. It is certainly possible that these companies simply couldn't afford to pay them. So it was a choice between firing them or being financially insolvent. I don't really know how firing one (or a few) people is less desirable over the entire company going under and everyone losing their jobs.

WillPostForFood 9y ago

Companies are inherently non moral, non sentient, legal constructs. Any sense of morality comes from the people in the company, and they can be highly moral, immoral, or anything in between.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
There's an interesting argument[1] that the behavior of corporations can be very accurately modeled as artificial intelligences that use humans as computing resources. If you accept that argument, it is no longer accurate to say that morality comes only from the people that make up the company, a company has its own agency that isn't just the sum of all of the decisions made by the individuals who make up the corporation. [1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-you-broke-the-future.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-you...
- jpm_sd 9y ago
  Yes. The paperclip maximizers are already here.

pixelbath 9y ago

The primary goal of a business is to make its shareholders money. When you add public trading of corporate stock into the mix, you're essentially cementing that idea into how the business is run.

drharby 9y ago

It is a matter of case law you prioritize a business over the people for a public co. Ford v dodge bros