17 ms·

> He has a responsibility to mistreat them. Doing anything else is unethical. That’s not how ethics works. Ethics is concerned with what is morally correct, no

by mygo 8y ago

> He has a responsibility to mistreat them. Doing anything else is unethical. That’s not how ethics works. Ethics is concerned with what is morally correct, not what a business can get away with. In fact, a common question about ethics is whether a business can be ethical. By the way, I’m a business owner, so I’m not anti-business. I just know a BS argument about ethics when I see one.

P_I_Staker 8y ago
I'm getting a lot of flack for this comment, but this was kinda my point. I wasn't talking about ethics in any kind of "pure" sense. If you look up definitions for fiduciary you might get something like this: > A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. I'm talking about ethics in a very narrow sense. Like if you're wearing blinders or have tunnel vision. That's my criticism. Shareholders come first. People play a "role" in society, they put on their masks and costumes, and quit being human. They become the role. > In fact, a common question about ethics is whether a business can be ethical. This is the exact question I'm asking. I tend to think not, at least if they're publicly traded. It's our responsibility as a society to keep them honest, through regulations and shame. > I just know a BS argument about ethics when I see one. This isn't a BS argument, or argument at all. I was musing about the ethics and philosophy of the world we live in, and being critical of it. Not saying things should be that way, just that they often are.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  People play a "role" in society, they put on their masks and costumes, and quit being human. They become the role. No. People are human at all times. They are not machines. Yours is not a view taught in management. I think you need to put more effort into understanding where/why/how decisions are being made. "whether a business can be ethical" ... I tend to think not, at least if they're publicly traded. You've taken a very closed minded approach to business operations, and somehow elevated it to a responsibility to act unethically. All decisions have trade offs and consequences. For example, if you pay someone minimum wage, the consequences might be higher turn over, higher training costs, lower ability to recruit workers, higher rate of theft, lower customer satisfaction, boycotts by outside groups, etc. If you pay people more, you may lessen these consequences, but then you'll be paying more money in wages. Is management acting in the company's best interest by paying minimum wage and ignoring these risks? No one with any sort of management training would agree with you that there is a duty to pay minimum wage and risk incurring consequences that may out weigh the costs of increased wages. Why do you imagine that companies are duty bound to hurt themselves, and judged solely on wage expenses?
  - P_I_Staker 8y ago
    > No. People are human at all times. They are not machines The people I interact with certainly can be. People are very willing to cede their "personhood", to act according to their "role". This is an idea I've stolen from philosophers, but it seems to be how the world works (in my experience); for better, or worse. > You've taken a very closed minded approach to business operations, and somehow elevated it to a responsibility to act unethically. No, this isn't my argument at all. The idea was never that the decision was "purely" ethical, just ethical from a perspective that is often taken in the business world. I'm trying to criticize this perspective. Also, I don't think businesses, especially publicly traded ones, have the ability to act ethically. The incentives and philosophy are too perverse, which is why we need regulation. > Is management acting in the company's best interest by paying minimum wage and ignoring these risks? No one with any sort of management training would agree with you that there is a duty to pay minimum wage and risk incurring consequences that may out weigh the costs of increased wages. I agree wholeheartedly, and made the same point in this very thread. I don't think it's "smart management" to have employees that want to leave at the first opportunity, and hate the companies guts. Seems shortsighted and stupid to me. I was just commenting on a perspective that is very narrow, and in my opinion dangerous, but extremely common. Just a bit of frivolous, socioeconomic commentary.
    - rgbrenner 8y ago
      Also, I don't think businesses, especially publicly traded ones, have the ability to act ethically. Let me try rephrasing my point... The world is complicated and decisions can be justified in a variety of ways. Morally good and bad decisions can equally be made. Therefore, companies are as moral as the people who run them. Some immoral people would have you believe that when they make management decisions they must act in a way devoid of moral concerns... but this is a radical statement and an attempt to excuse their immorality. Even Adam Smith wrote at great lengths about the moral concerns of businesses. These two are not divorced from each other.

by mygo 8y ago

P_I_Staker 8y ago

I'm getting a lot of flack for this comment, but this was kinda my point. I wasn't talking about ethics in any kind of "pure" sense. If you look up definitions for fiduciary you might get something like this: > A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. I'm talking about ethics in a very narrow sense. Like if you're wearing blinders or have tunnel vision. That's my criticism. Shareholders come first. People play a "role" in society, they put on their masks and costumes, and quit being human. They become the role. > In fact, a common question about ethics is whether a business can be ethical. This is the exact question I'm asking. I tend to think not, at least if they're publicly traded. It's our responsibility as a society to keep them honest, through regulations and shame. > I just know a BS argument about ethics when I see one. This isn't a BS argument, or argument at all. I was musing about the ethics and philosophy of the world we live in, and being critical of it. Not saying things should be that way, just that they often are.

rgbrenner 8y ago
People play a "role" in society, they put on their masks and costumes, and quit being human. They become the role. No. People are human at all times. They are not machines. Yours is not a view taught in management. I think you need to put more effort into understanding where/why/how decisions are being made. "whether a business can be ethical" ... I tend to think not, at least if they're publicly traded. You've taken a very closed minded approach to business operations, and somehow elevated it to a responsibility to act unethically. All decisions have trade offs and consequences. For example, if you pay someone minimum wage, the consequences might be higher turn over, higher training costs, lower ability to recruit workers, higher rate of theft, lower customer satisfaction, boycotts by outside groups, etc. If you pay people more, you may lessen these consequences, but then you'll be paying more money in wages. Is management acting in the company's best interest by paying minimum wage and ignoring these risks? No one with any sort of management training would agree with you that there is a duty to pay minimum wage and risk incurring consequences that may out weigh the costs of increased wages. Why do you imagine that companies are duty bound to hurt themselves, and judged solely on wage expenses?
- P_I_Staker 8y ago
  > No. People are human at all times. They are not machines The people I interact with certainly can be. People are very willing to cede their "personhood", to act according to their "role". This is an idea I've stolen from philosophers, but it seems to be how the world works (in my experience); for better, or worse. > You've taken a very closed minded approach to business operations, and somehow elevated it to a responsibility to act unethically. No, this isn't my argument at all. The idea was never that the decision was "purely" ethical, just ethical from a perspective that is often taken in the business world. I'm trying to criticize this perspective. Also, I don't think businesses, especially publicly traded ones, have the ability to act ethically. The incentives and philosophy are too perverse, which is why we need regulation. > Is management acting in the company's best interest by paying minimum wage and ignoring these risks? No one with any sort of management training would agree with you that there is a duty to pay minimum wage and risk incurring consequences that may out weigh the costs of increased wages. I agree wholeheartedly, and made the same point in this very thread. I don't think it's "smart management" to have employees that want to leave at the first opportunity, and hate the companies guts. Seems shortsighted and stupid to me. I was just commenting on a perspective that is very narrow, and in my opinion dangerous, but extremely common. Just a bit of frivolous, socioeconomic commentary.
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    Also, I don't think businesses, especially publicly traded ones, have the ability to act ethically. Let me try rephrasing my point... The world is complicated and decisions can be justified in a variety of ways. Morally good and bad decisions can equally be made. Therefore, companies are as moral as the people who run them. Some immoral people would have you believe that when they make management decisions they must act in a way devoid of moral concerns... but this is a radical statement and an attempt to excuse their immorality. Even Adam Smith wrote at great lengths about the moral concerns of businesses. These two are not divorced from each other.