4 ms·

It’s weird how we still attach ideas of morality to a corporation. You could say google does evil but it can’t be evil in the normal sense of the word. It’s no

It’s weird how we still attach ideas of morality to a corporation. You could say google does evil but it can’t be evil in the normal sense of the word. It’s not a person. And you could say a Corporation is amoral. They just care about nothing except profit. The CEO and board have no duty higher than that.

Retric 7y ago
Companies can be more or less harmful than normal. We call humans evil not because they are the embodiment of a platonic ideal, but rather they do some list of horrid things. Similarly, some companies on net are just worse than others. To use a strait forward example workplace safety issues are often both detrimental to a company and harmful to it’s workforce. Amazon for example will store heavy objects at their warehouses under low overhangs forcing people to carry stuff while bent over, which regularly causes back injuries. That’s actively causing the company to lose money and gets people hurt regularly. In many ways companies are a set of policies than can and will change. But, nothing says those polices are neutral or optimal.
addicted 7y ago
I’d like to point out that the idea that corporations “care about nothing except profit” is a fairly radical and new idea that would have been completely alien to anyone from more than a few decades ago. It’s a testament to the success of the propaganda of the people who pushed this idea that, whether a good idea or not, the majority of people today consider it fundamental and will probably be surprised to learn how new it is.
- SoylentOrange 7y ago
  I’m genuinely interested, can you provide a source for this? My understanding of companies is they have always been exploitative. Any large company from the gilded age is a good example (now almost a century ago). Further back, the companies of the industrial revolution were legendary for their amorality. Another example I’m familiar with is coal companies in Scotland before WWI.
  - pmontra 7y ago
    This is an interesting article on the subject https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... (2015) This is another one https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-talent-management/columns/the-purpose-of-business-is-not-to-make-a-profi https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-talent-management/colum... from 2011. The points are * Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value * Profit, but not Profit Maximization
  - wool_gather 7y ago
    The Shareholder Value Myth is a good recent-ish book laying out the case that maximizing profits no matter what is not in fact a requirement. There's been discussion of it occasionally on HN. For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17529520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17529520
- karlunio 7y ago
  You say this idea is new and radical. Where would you say this idea comes from? In this case, what other things do companies generally "care" about?
evilGoogle 7y ago
That's a either a naive, or corporate apologist opinion. It's like some sort of Libertarian fever dream. Does that hold true for corporations that produce, distribute, and over-prescribe addictive and deadly opiates? These corporations have directly contributed to 130,000+ deaths in 2016 - 2017 alone.
zepto 7y ago
As long as we attach personhood to a corporation, it is correct to attach morality to it.
v7p1Qbt1im 7y ago
I actually disagree here. Majority-Owner/CEO‘s like Page/Brin, Bezos and Zuckerberg absolutely might have idealogical ambitions and not just monetary gain. I kind of buy that Page/Brin want to create real AI to bring humanity forward. And that Bezos uses Amazon as a money machine to fund humanities future in space. Not sure about Zuckerberg but he‘s certainly not motivated by money I think. I‘m not saying their motives are pure obviously. They still want to be in charge of that future. But money seems like an incredibly boring goal.

Retric 7y ago

Companies can be more or less harmful than normal. We call humans evil not because they are the embodiment of a platonic ideal, but rather they do some list of horrid things. Similarly, some companies on net are just worse than others. To use a strait forward example workplace safety issues are often both detrimental to a company and harmful to it’s workforce. Amazon for example will store heavy objects at their warehouses under low overhangs forcing people to carry stuff while bent over, which regularly causes back injuries. That’s actively causing the company to lose money and gets people hurt regularly. In many ways companies are a set of policies than can and will change. But, nothing says those polices are neutral or optimal.

addicted 7y ago

I’d like to point out that the idea that corporations “care about nothing except profit” is a fairly radical and new idea that would have been completely alien to anyone from more than a few decades ago. It’s a testament to the success of the propaganda of the people who pushed this idea that, whether a good idea or not, the majority of people today consider it fundamental and will probably be surprised to learn how new it is.

SoylentOrange 7y ago
I’m genuinely interested, can you provide a source for this? My understanding of companies is they have always been exploitative. Any large company from the gilded age is a good example (now almost a century ago). Further back, the companies of the industrial revolution were legendary for their amorality. Another example I’m familiar with is coal companies in Scotland before WWI.
- pmontra 7y ago
  This is an interesting article on the subject https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... (2015) This is another one https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-talent-management/columns/the-purpose-of-business-is-not-to-make-a-profi https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-talent-management/colum... from 2011. The points are * Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value * Profit, but not Profit Maximization
- wool_gather 7y ago
  The Shareholder Value Myth is a good recent-ish book laying out the case that maximizing profits no matter what is not in fact a requirement. There's been discussion of it occasionally on HN. For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17529520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17529520
karlunio 7y ago
You say this idea is new and radical. Where would you say this idea comes from? In this case, what other things do companies generally "care" about?

evilGoogle 7y ago

That's a either a naive, or corporate apologist opinion. It's like some sort of Libertarian fever dream. Does that hold true for corporations that produce, distribute, and over-prescribe addictive and deadly opiates? These corporations have directly contributed to 130,000+ deaths in 2016 - 2017 alone.

zepto 7y ago

As long as we attach personhood to a corporation, it is correct to attach morality to it.

v7p1Qbt1im 7y ago

I actually disagree here. Majority-Owner/CEO‘s like Page/Brin, Bezos and Zuckerberg absolutely might have idealogical ambitions and not just monetary gain. I kind of buy that Page/Brin want to create real AI to bring humanity forward. And that Bezos uses Amazon as a money machine to fund humanities future in space. Not sure about Zuckerberg but he‘s certainly not motivated by money I think. I‘m not saying their motives are pure obviously. They still want to be in charge of that future. But money seems like an incredibly boring goal.