8 ms·
I have very little sympathy for these companies getting called out. Many of them gleefully throw themselves into the political arena when they can capitalize on
by jsonne 8y ago
I have very little sympathy for these companies getting called out. Many of them gleefully throw themselves into the political arena when they can capitalize on things like pride or international women's day for cheap progressive points and some marketing exposure yet shirk away from the conversation about where they get their investment money from. I would say this is a nice lesson for a lot of marketing departments. If you're going to interject yourself, as a company, into the political arena, you have to be all in otherwise you will get called out like this eventually.
- itsmenotyou 8y ago> If you're going to interject yourself, as a company, into the political arena, you have to be all in otherwise you will get called out like this eventually. A company selectively interjecting itself into the political arena highlights its hypocrisy, but any company having a significant public impact should be getting called out regardless of their actions in other spheres. Ethics are not an opt-in.
- notyourday 8y agoHow about American universities that educate people from KSA paid by KSA? Should they be called out for taking blood money? After all international students are basically the only ones that pay the full rack rate?
- lmm 8y agoMaking yourself an ethical arbiter is opt-in; deciding to pursue profit within the constraints of a particular legal regime (or indeed a particular religion ethical doctrine) but otherwise apolitically is entirely legitimate, and I suspect makes one more likely to act in a genuinely good way than chasing the hot-button issues of the day.
- wowzap 8y agoCan't a company just do what's best for itself and it's shareholders? Why does every organization need a moral/ethical complex which caters to the issues of modern day?
- carapace 8y ago> Can't a company just do what's best for itself and it's shareholders? That's exactly what ethical behaviour is. > Why does every organization need a moral/ethical complex which caters to the issues of modern day? Because joining a corporation does not remove you from human society.
- Afforess 8y agoCompanies exist to serve society, not the other way around. Corporate charters are granted by governments, from the people.
- wowzap 8y agoOk I'll bite, so if your company is based in Saudi Arabia you have to be okay with killing journalists because the charter was granted by the government?
- guhidalg 8y agoOk I’ll bite :) Does Saudi Arabia have centuries of free enterprise, civil rights progress, government accountability, and not-a-monarchy?
- mdorazio 8y agoWhat does any of that have to do with the previous question?
- y4mi 8y agoThe premises of the grandparent was > Corporate charters are granted by governments, from the people. This is true for the USA, at least afaict as an European. The same can't be said about Saudi Arabia, as sad as that might be.
- simias 8y agoWell if you're a Saudi citizen and you don't have much of a choice then clearly no, it's just the way things are, you don't choose where you're born. If you're a foreigner and go out of your way to open a company in Saudi Arabia then clearly yes.
- imsofuture 8y agoOverall, I agree with your point, but it's definitely a fallacy that if you do bad things it nullifies good things that you do. If (for example) you thought that eating vegan was better ethically or environmentally, eating vegan only one day a week would still be "better" than not eating vegan at all. Eating non-vegan some of the time is not hypocritical, nor does it nullify the "good" you're doing. Absolutely though, companies should be shamed (and not patronized) for their bad behavior and bad associations.
- sgt101 8y agoYeah, but I wouldn't focus on the vegan part of the phrase "x is a vegan serial killer" if someone was introduced that way.
- jsonne 8y ago"but it's definitely a fallacy that if you do bad things it nullifies good things that you do." That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if you inject yourself as a moral arbiter into a debate, then the people you're marketing to with that stance are going to demand moral purity. You open yourself up to more criticism when you first criticize. I'm not really making a moral argument here at all actually. I'm more saying "those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" from a practical standpoint unless you're ready to abandon good business practices in the pursuit and constantly moving goal posts of moral purity.