4 ms·

Why would small fines mean they should behave correctly? Small fines make it easy to justify as "cost of doing business". It's the large onerous fines which inc

Why would small fines mean they should behave correctly? Small fines make it easy to justify as "cost of doing business". It's the large onerous fines which incentivize them to do it the less-profitable and more-moral way, because the fines cost more than doing it right. Hate to be cliche, but reminds me of the opening scene in Fight Club where Edward Norton's character describes how insurance adjusters(?) determine if a recall is cheaper than the lawsuits from dead/injured people, they do it, otherwise... they don't. Why would Amazon behave less profitably? Simply because we perceive it to be more moral?

drharby 7y ago
And the kicker I'd like to add to the conversation is, 'who's morals are more moral than the others?'
- normalnorm 7y ago
  Joke's on you Immanuel Kant, we have a real philosopher in here!
  - drharby 7y ago
    I don't understand, are you mocking me or do we have a bonafide and well respected PhD of Philosophy with a track record in this comment thread? If the former, I'm super disappointed but not surprised. It is no secret that anyone who remotely questions the criticism of Amazon is downvoted on this forum. And I say that as someone who avoids spending a dollar out of protest against that company. I really find their practices terrible.
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  Kant said basically 'Do unto others what you want done to you', so whatever goes for Bezos goes for any of their employees.
CodeMage 7y ago
> Why would Amazon behave less profitably? Simply because we perceive it to be more moral? Yes. Why is this so controversial? Why are we okay with profits being more important than ethics?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  >Why are we okay with profits being more important than ethics? Both are continuums, with profits being accurately quantified, and ethics being quite vague, subject to culture and people and history - it's no surprise not every actor comes to the same actions given the same situation.
- rebuilder 7y ago
  Corporations reliably do not care about morality more than they do about their bottom line. If you want to push them into behaving ethically, you need tools that work. Finger-wagging doesn't work. Hurting the bottom line might.
  - yardie 7y ago
    Hurting the bottom line just means the workers get shafted (pay cuts or layoffs). Even with a fine shareholders still get their dividends. No, to really drive the point corporate officers need to go to jail.
  - piva00 7y ago
    When I hear this argument the way my head translates it is "we need to create a market for morality" which sounds quite absurd...
    - rebuilder 7y ago
      I tend to look at it from the perspective of "what can we do" more than "what is right". While moral values certainly set the direction we should head in, having strong values achieves no good in the world without practical action.
erentz 7y ago
Say you’re the guy working at Amazon over this issue and some corrupted state agency starts trying to give you advice on how to limit your responsibilities, shift blame onto the worker, smear the worker, etc. The question is at that point what do you do? And to boot the amount of money being saved by this will be peanuts. I would say something to the effect of “stop I don’t want a part in that please follow the correct process and investigate properly.” That’s what should happen when faced with incidents like this.
wpietri 7y ago
Because Amazon is not some fell-from-space killer blob, but a collection of human beings, who all should have moral senses? The notion that we can design a perfect legal system that will always coerce prosocial behavior from sociopaths is absurd. One of the founding assumptions of a democracy is that most people, being humans, will behave humanely. In some circumstances, they need guidance and modest incentives, which is why we have things like building codes, health codes, and workplace safety standards. In rarer circumstances, some people are so awful that we need criminal sanctions to remove bad apples from the ability to cause harm. We should not expect people to give up their moral sense just because they are cashing a paycheck. And we must not excuse leaders for being monsters just because they get a bigger slice of the pie.

drharby 7y ago

And the kicker I'd like to add to the conversation is, 'who's morals are more moral than the others?'

normalnorm 7y ago
Joke's on you Immanuel Kant, we have a real philosopher in here!
- drharby 7y ago
  I don't understand, are you mocking me or do we have a bonafide and well respected PhD of Philosophy with a track record in this comment thread? If the former, I'm super disappointed but not surprised. It is no secret that anyone who remotely questions the criticism of Amazon is downvoted on this forum. And I say that as someone who avoids spending a dollar out of protest against that company. I really find their practices terrible.
JetSpiegel 7y ago
Kant said basically 'Do unto others what you want done to you', so whatever goes for Bezos goes for any of their employees.

CodeMage 7y ago

> Why would Amazon behave less profitably? Simply because we perceive it to be more moral? Yes. Why is this so controversial? Why are we okay with profits being more important than ethics?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ChrisLomont 7y ago
>Why are we okay with profits being more important than ethics? Both are continuums, with profits being accurately quantified, and ethics being quite vague, subject to culture and people and history - it's no surprise not every actor comes to the same actions given the same situation.
rebuilder 7y ago
Corporations reliably do not care about morality more than they do about their bottom line. If you want to push them into behaving ethically, you need tools that work. Finger-wagging doesn't work. Hurting the bottom line might.
- yardie 7y ago
  Hurting the bottom line just means the workers get shafted (pay cuts or layoffs). Even with a fine shareholders still get their dividends. No, to really drive the point corporate officers need to go to jail.
- piva00 7y ago
  When I hear this argument the way my head translates it is "we need to create a market for morality" which sounds quite absurd...
  - rebuilder 7y ago
    I tend to look at it from the perspective of "what can we do" more than "what is right". While moral values certainly set the direction we should head in, having strong values achieves no good in the world without practical action.

erentz 7y ago

Say you’re the guy working at Amazon over this issue and some corrupted state agency starts trying to give you advice on how to limit your responsibilities, shift blame onto the worker, smear the worker, etc. The question is at that point what do you do? And to boot the amount of money being saved by this will be peanuts. I would say something to the effect of “stop I don’t want a part in that please follow the correct process and investigate properly.” That’s what should happen when faced with incidents like this.

wpietri 7y ago

Because Amazon is not some fell-from-space killer blob, but a collection of human beings, who all should have moral senses? The notion that we can design a perfect legal system that will always coerce prosocial behavior from sociopaths is absurd. One of the founding assumptions of a democracy is that most people, being humans, will behave humanely. In some circumstances, they need guidance and modest incentives, which is why we have things like building codes, health codes, and workplace safety standards. In rarer circumstances, some people are so awful that we need criminal sanctions to remove bad apples from the ability to cause harm. We should not expect people to give up their moral sense just because they are cashing a paycheck. And we must not excuse leaders for being monsters just because they get a bigger slice of the pie.