3 ms·

Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" tha

Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value? Personally I think this trope has no basis in fact and cannot explain why Google or any other company is compelled to do things that are wrong. Really? I'm surprised that you have a problem believing that people who manage companies might do things of dubious moral value in order to maximize profit. But, if you insist... It could be easily argued that BP, Halliburton, et al... maximized shareholder value over environmental safety concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill The current recession is largely due to financial services companies creating derivatives out of sub prime mortgages. That is, bundling toxic debt and making it look like a AAA rated investment and selling it for profit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession Enron's "...reported financial condition was sustained substantially by institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud, known as the "Enron scandal"" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron Vioxx was a drug that I've seen people die from. It was pushed through the FDA approval process and then withdrawn after people started dying from it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib Classic example of corporations producing and selling a drug that was toxic, leading to thousands of horrible birth defects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide IBM made a lot of money selling automation systems so the Nazi's could efficiently kill millions in the Holocaust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust Chiquita Brands has admitted to sponsoring terrorist organizations in Latin America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Chiquita_Brands_International http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Chiquita_Brands_Internat... > Oh, and by the way, the government can have access to all that data without a search warrant. Don't know where you are getting this from. Really??? If you insist... "Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program", part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S." [1] ref: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co...

tedunangst 16y ago
None of your links provide any evidence that the company was legally obligated to do any of those naughty things.
jamesaguilar 16y ago
All your corporation-evil links fail because they do not show that any law requires this behavior. Please actually answer my question rather than other questions which I did not ask. Your NSA link fails for two reasons. First, anyone can access your data without a search warrant if they do it illegally. It is deceptive to suggest that the USG can legally access your data without a search warrant. Second, as a technical matter, the USG can intercept communication between Google and you, but does not have access to Google's stored data. The concern is over the data that is going to be stored since obviously that communication between you and Google was going to happen anyway. DDG is no more safe from this attack surface than Google except inasmuch as they offer SSL search, which Google offers as well.
btilly 16y ago
You have given plenty of examples of morally wrong things being done for financial gain. That is not news. People have been corrupt and greedy for thousands of years. What you have failed to do is show any evidence at all that companies are legally obliged to be corrupt and greedy. On your link about warrantless surveillance, scroll down to the long section on legal issues. While there is no question that the government asked for, and got, a lot of that information, the legality of the request is quite a different matter. And now for the concrete counter-example, when the NSA asked for Qwest's cooperation, they didn't get it. This decision has materially affected Qwest's financials because they were shut out of a lucrative NSA contract. Now show me the shareholder lawsuit against Qwest for failing to maximize shareholder value by refusing the NSA on this matter.
iamelgringo 16y ago
For what it's worth, I'm not saying that Corporations are legally bound to do immoral things. My argument is that people within corporations are required do to things that are in the corporations and the shareholders best interest. And, that pressure at times causes people within corporations to do actions of questionable morality.

tedunangst 16y ago

None of your links provide any evidence that the company was legally obligated to do any of those naughty things.

jamesaguilar 16y ago

All your corporation-evil links fail because they do not show that any law requires this behavior. Please actually answer my question rather than other questions which I did not ask. Your NSA link fails for two reasons. First, anyone can access your data without a search warrant if they do it illegally. It is deceptive to suggest that the USG can legally access your data without a search warrant. Second, as a technical matter, the USG can intercept communication between Google and you, but does not have access to Google's stored data. The concern is over the data that is going to be stored since obviously that communication between you and Google was going to happen anyway. DDG is no more safe from this attack surface than Google except inasmuch as they offer SSL search, which Google offers as well.

btilly 16y ago

You have given plenty of examples of morally wrong things being done for financial gain. That is not news. People have been corrupt and greedy for thousands of years. What you have failed to do is show any evidence at all that companies are legally obliged to be corrupt and greedy. On your link about warrantless surveillance, scroll down to the long section on legal issues. While there is no question that the government asked for, and got, a lot of that information, the legality of the request is quite a different matter. And now for the concrete counter-example, when the NSA asked for Qwest's cooperation, they didn't get it. This decision has materially affected Qwest's financials because they were shut out of a lucrative NSA contract. Now show me the shareholder lawsuit against Qwest for failing to maximize shareholder value by refusing the NSA on this matter.

iamelgringo 16y ago

For what it's worth, I'm not saying that Corporations are legally bound to do immoral things. My argument is that people within corporations are required do to things that are in the corporations and the shareholders best interest. And, that pressure at times causes people within corporations to do actions of questionable morality.