3 ms·
You can expand your thinking a little. Let's say society as a whole confers a benefit of $x for a 'feel good' story about a corporation doing well. We can inte
by natalyarostova 8y ago
You can expand your thinking a little.
Let's say society as a whole confers a benefit of $x for a 'feel good' story about a corporation doing well. We can interpret this however we want, for example, the propensity to shop on Amazon increases by some epsilon.
This now means companies will try to do morally 'good' things in order to gain these rents.
This is a mechanism in which we reward companies for engaging in socially optimal behavior, and it operates without any central management.
Of course, like all things, this can be gamed. But that's not, on its own, a reason to suspect it's all for naught.
- mkmk 8y agoThis is an interesting way to look at it, thank you. However, I do think that there are certain norms, that when violated, deserve to be called out. By calling them out, we help enforce the norms that are important to us. For me, the norm that was violated here was "don't use the fact that you are treating disabled people decently as a way to elevate your business," which is a subset of a larger norm of "don't use disadvantaged members of our society for personal gain". Pitching this story to the press (which Amazon certainly did) is different than doing the good deed itself, and the positive benefit to their business for doing this seems like it shouldn't outweigh the social norm that has been violated. Surely there are positive moral things they have done (some recycling initiative?) that don't rely on violating the norms I listed above.
- natalyarostova 8y agoI guess the higher order question we may be disagreeing on is "Is it okay to use disadvantaged people for personal gain, if in doing so you also improve their state in life? I would answer (not enthusiastically) that it is okay.