9 ms·

Why should a for-profit enterprise have any kind of ethical consideration at all? It seems that's your mistake.

tomrod 6y ago
Inadvertently, this is a great argument for government as the public needs a coercive force able to require companies to internalize costs.
- tenuousemphasis 6y ago
  Companies only exist as legal fictions granted privileges by governments.
  - tomrod 6y ago
    Patently untrue. The organization known as corporation, sort of. All of this is a red herring related to the point of cost internalization.
rmrfstar 6y ago
Because we live in a society with social norms and a moral code. If anything, we should expect more morality from institutions that avail themselves of limited liability legal forms. This "corporations should be cynical sociopaths" idea is even newer than the limited liability corporate form, which is itself a modern invention. Before the current era of hyper-institutionalization and hyper-legalism there was a concept called "natural law". It basically meant morality, as understood at the time.
- wisty 6y ago
  Often, society is wrong and capitalism is right. When society is prejudiced against a group (not the fake prejudice that society complains about - major broadcasters like Fox and CNN are both probably championing groups who have plenty of support from society, but maybe other groups are actually marginalised but it wouldn't be broadly OK to say it if they were) then it's not society's moral code that helps them (if anything it hurts them), it's businesses that only care about money who will still deal with them.
  - doomrobo 6y ago
    Examples?
    - wisty 6y ago
      Latinos and people with mental illness (and fat people) are kinda still acceptable targets. Poor whites. Men in some contexts. Asians in some contexts. One of the biggest issues with the whole anti-discrimination movement now is that it is inherently reductionist - it has to be some grand intersectional operatic fight with clear goodies and baddies who are always winners or losers in some deep conspiratorial structure of society, they can't appreciate that discrimination isn't always so black and white and that often context can matter because for the "theory" to work it always has to be about some imagined power struggle.
      - JauntyHatAngle 6y ago
        What? That isn't the argument most anti-discrimination people make. Most argue that subconscious bias and wealth inequality due to historical reasons are a significant part of discrimination. I've not met someone 'anti-discrimination' who believes there is a deep conspiracy of people working to instill discrimination across society. In modern times in the western world, conspiratorial sort of discrimination seems to me to occur more in pockets or if the culture of an organisation goes bad and festers. But it's rarely overt or widespread. More subtle and nuanced forms of discrimination are still everpresent of course, but everyone I discuss and work with in these issues knows this all too well.
        dcow 6y ago
        Oh I've definitely encountered rhetoric that suggests middle class white-appearing males have intentionally and in bad faith created discriminatory structures because their power complex is what gets them off at night. I did go to a very liberal college though. I hope that stance is not becoming mainstream...
donw 6y ago
For-profit corporations acting as a source for public good was the case for a good, long time. The idea of "maximize shareholder value" didn't really kick off until the 80's, and it's been an absolute disaster for the country ever since.
jariel 6y ago
Companies have competing constituents: 1) Shareholders 2) Debt-holders and financiers 3) Executives 4) Suppliers 5) Customers 6) Staff ... and may have a charter or mission, or even an established culture which sets guiding principles. Various forms of legal power (ownership, right to collectively bargain, fiduciary/oversight responsibility, first rights to assets on liquidation), social power, market power (price negotiation), and individual intention (everyone, even bankers make decisions based on something other than just money) form, a kind of dynamic equilibrium. So a company is going to end up being or doing whatever the combined weighted intentions of those forces imply. It's not 'shareholders' that can do anything willy nilly. Sometimes customers have all of the power and indirectly dictate everything. Inversely maybe buyers do: Apple is a dictator to many of its suppliers. Sometimes Unions run the show or have incredible influence (auto industry, government), sometimes the debtors. Sometimes the 'CEO' particularly a founder even without 'majority shares' has considerably more influence than anyone else, with the board afraid to replace them. A non-profit is almost the same minus shareholders.
nullc 6y ago
In a world of pure capitalism without ethical considerations at all... these sorts of issues can be "resolved" through assassination markets against the owners and operators of enterprises that become too great a public nuisance. Is that what you want, or would you instead prefer that ethical considerations be back on the table?
- tenuousemphasis 6y ago
  Honestly we could use an assassination market right about now.
  - julianj 6y ago
    Reminds me of Black Mirror Season 3e6. It's all fine until you mess up and piss off the mob.
rexgallorum2 6y ago
This shouldn't have been voted down. It is actually a sound question and one that should be examined. Edit: I looked at the previous replies. All of this talk of 'society' this and 'we' that is of no use whatsoever when you are talking about global phenomena and companies like Facebook/Twitter/etc. Under the given circumstances, the ethical questions are much larger. The problem is probably totally intractable.
taneq 6y ago
Like altruism, ethical behaviour is ultimately an expression of enlightened self-interest. People know this on an individual scale, and it's just as true on a corporate scale. When a company acts unethically, it is almost always paying a high price later for a small immediate win. We see this kind of behaviour a lot in companies that have been taken over by short-term MBA-style management, who temporarily boost quarterly revenues by burning years or decades of accumulated reputation and good will.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Like altruism, ethical behaviour is ultimately an expression of enlightened self-interest. I somewhat disagree on a generalized form of "altruism is in the individual's interest" (as in "always"), but for ethical behavior, this essentially means that their is no ethical behavior for companies, only a mirroring of the perceived values of customers. You need very different actions to not tarnish your reputation when you're dealing with very different customers. Since large companies typically do, there would only be very localized ethics, and they could be diametrically opposed (e.g. "expose & hunt down gays" in Riad, "expose & hunt down bigots" in Berkeley). Ethics is the wrong term here, as the company's actions are not based on principles but on the expectations and principles of the environment, their values are reactive.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    >Ethics is the wrong term here, as the company's actions are not based on principles [...] // The principle "do anything of any moral values that brings me value from others' labour" is still a position wrt ethics, though one can't really call it "ethical" without confusion. Complete moral plasticity according to what "sells" seems to define our age quite well.
BaronSamedi 6y ago
Since this is a widely held view, it is worth debating. I would argue for a contrary position: 1) every organization has an ethical responsibility, and 2) corporations not only do have an ethical responsibility but have a higher one. A few, abbreviated reasons are as follows. Every member of a physical grouping (e.g. neighborhood, community, city, state, etc.) has an ethical responsibility to other members of that group. Organizations, like individuals, are members of a physical group. Therefore organizations have an ethical responsibility to other members of that group. Those who are granted special privileges by the group have a higher obligation to the group as a result. Ethical responsibility represents one of those obligations. Corporations are granted special privileges such as limited liability, hence they have a higher obligation. Similarly, those organizations that are granted disproportionate political and economic power, assume disproportionate obligations. With, again, ethical responsibility being one of those obligations. This is the "to whom much is given, much is required" principle. Also, since an organization with disproportionate political and economic power necessarily has a disproportionate impact on a given society, it is entirely reasonable for those granting that power to expect it to be used benevolently.
throwingagain 6y ago
Because externality is everywhere, and a society where organizations pay attention to this is preferable to one that suffers a thousand cuts by ignoring it.
ssalazar 6y ago
Because corporations are not a natural entity and exist at the behest of society as a whole? If that means nothing to you then read the link. Literally killing your own customers to make the line go up isn’t a sound business strategy.

Inadvertently, this is a great argument for government as the public needs a coercive force able to require companies to internalize costs.

tenuousemphasis 6y ago
Companies only exist as legal fictions granted privileges by governments.
- tomrod 6y ago
  Patently untrue. The organization known as corporation, sort of. All of this is a red herring related to the point of cost internalization.

rmrfstar 6y ago

Because we live in a society with social norms and a moral code. If anything, we should expect more morality from institutions that avail themselves of limited liability legal forms. This "corporations should be cynical sociopaths" idea is even newer than the limited liability corporate form, which is itself a modern invention. Before the current era of hyper-institutionalization and hyper-legalism there was a concept called "natural law". It basically meant morality, as understood at the time.

wisty 6y ago
Often, society is wrong and capitalism is right. When society is prejudiced against a group (not the fake prejudice that society complains about - major broadcasters like Fox and CNN are both probably championing groups who have plenty of support from society, but maybe other groups are actually marginalised but it wouldn't be broadly OK to say it if they were) then it's not society's moral code that helps them (if anything it hurts them), it's businesses that only care about money who will still deal with them.
- doomrobo 6y ago
  Examples?
  - wisty 6y ago
    Latinos and people with mental illness (and fat people) are kinda still acceptable targets. Poor whites. Men in some contexts. Asians in some contexts. One of the biggest issues with the whole anti-discrimination movement now is that it is inherently reductionist - it has to be some grand intersectional operatic fight with clear goodies and baddies who are always winners or losers in some deep conspiratorial structure of society, they can't appreciate that discrimination isn't always so black and white and that often context can matter because for the "theory" to work it always has to be about some imagined power struggle.
    - JauntyHatAngle 6y ago
      What? That isn't the argument most anti-discrimination people make. Most argue that subconscious bias and wealth inequality due to historical reasons are a significant part of discrimination. I've not met someone 'anti-discrimination' who believes there is a deep conspiracy of people working to instill discrimination across society. In modern times in the western world, conspiratorial sort of discrimination seems to me to occur more in pockets or if the culture of an organisation goes bad and festers. But it's rarely overt or widespread. More subtle and nuanced forms of discrimination are still everpresent of course, but everyone I discuss and work with in these issues knows this all too well.
      - dcow 6y ago
        Oh I've definitely encountered rhetoric that suggests middle class white-appearing males have intentionally and in bad faith created discriminatory structures because their power complex is what gets them off at night. I did go to a very liberal college though. I hope that stance is not becoming mainstream...

donw 6y ago

For-profit corporations acting as a source for public good was the case for a good, long time. The idea of "maximize shareholder value" didn't really kick off until the 80's, and it's been an absolute disaster for the country ever since.

jariel 6y ago

Companies have competing constituents: 1) Shareholders 2) Debt-holders and financiers 3) Executives 4) Suppliers 5) Customers 6) Staff ... and may have a charter or mission, or even an established culture which sets guiding principles. Various forms of legal power (ownership, right to collectively bargain, fiduciary/oversight responsibility, first rights to assets on liquidation), social power, market power (price negotiation), and individual intention (everyone, even bankers make decisions based on something other than just money) form, a kind of dynamic equilibrium. So a company is going to end up being or doing whatever the combined weighted intentions of those forces imply. It's not 'shareholders' that can do anything willy nilly. Sometimes customers have all of the power and indirectly dictate everything. Inversely maybe buyers do: Apple is a dictator to many of its suppliers. Sometimes Unions run the show or have incredible influence (auto industry, government), sometimes the debtors. Sometimes the 'CEO' particularly a founder even without 'majority shares' has considerably more influence than anyone else, with the board afraid to replace them. A non-profit is almost the same minus shareholders.

nullc 6y ago

In a world of pure capitalism without ethical considerations at all... these sorts of issues can be "resolved" through assassination markets against the owners and operators of enterprises that become too great a public nuisance. Is that what you want, or would you instead prefer that ethical considerations be back on the table?

tenuousemphasis 6y ago
Honestly we could use an assassination market right about now.
- julianj 6y ago
  Reminds me of Black Mirror Season 3e6. It's all fine until you mess up and piss off the mob.

rexgallorum2 6y ago

This shouldn't have been voted down. It is actually a sound question and one that should be examined. Edit: I looked at the previous replies. All of this talk of 'society' this and 'we' that is of no use whatsoever when you are talking about global phenomena and companies like Facebook/Twitter/etc. Under the given circumstances, the ethical questions are much larger. The problem is probably totally intractable.

taneq 6y ago

Like altruism, ethical behaviour is ultimately an expression of enlightened self-interest. People know this on an individual scale, and it's just as true on a corporate scale. When a company acts unethically, it is almost always paying a high price later for a small immediate win. We see this kind of behaviour a lot in companies that have been taken over by short-term MBA-style management, who temporarily boost quarterly revenues by burning years or decades of accumulated reputation and good will.

luckylion 6y ago
> Like altruism, ethical behaviour is ultimately an expression of enlightened self-interest. I somewhat disagree on a generalized form of "altruism is in the individual's interest" (as in "always"), but for ethical behavior, this essentially means that their is no ethical behavior for companies, only a mirroring of the perceived values of customers. You need very different actions to not tarnish your reputation when you're dealing with very different customers. Since large companies typically do, there would only be very localized ethics, and they could be diametrically opposed (e.g. "expose & hunt down gays" in Riad, "expose & hunt down bigots" in Berkeley). Ethics is the wrong term here, as the company's actions are not based on principles but on the expectations and principles of the environment, their values are reactive.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  >Ethics is the wrong term here, as the company's actions are not based on principles [...] // The principle "do anything of any moral values that brings me value from others' labour" is still a position wrt ethics, though one can't really call it "ethical" without confusion. Complete moral plasticity according to what "sells" seems to define our age quite well.

BaronSamedi 6y ago

Since this is a widely held view, it is worth debating. I would argue for a contrary position: 1) every organization has an ethical responsibility, and 2) corporations not only do have an ethical responsibility but have a higher one. A few, abbreviated reasons are as follows. Every member of a physical grouping (e.g. neighborhood, community, city, state, etc.) has an ethical responsibility to other members of that group. Organizations, like individuals, are members of a physical group. Therefore organizations have an ethical responsibility to other members of that group. Those who are granted special privileges by the group have a higher obligation to the group as a result. Ethical responsibility represents one of those obligations. Corporations are granted special privileges such as limited liability, hence they have a higher obligation. Similarly, those organizations that are granted disproportionate political and economic power, assume disproportionate obligations. With, again, ethical responsibility being one of those obligations. This is the "to whom much is given, much is required" principle. Also, since an organization with disproportionate political and economic power necessarily has a disproportionate impact on a given society, it is entirely reasonable for those granting that power to expect it to be used benevolently.

throwingagain 6y ago

Because externality is everywhere, and a society where organizations pay attention to this is preferable to one that suffers a thousand cuts by ignoring it.

ssalazar 6y ago

Because corporations are not a natural entity and exist at the behest of society as a whole? If that means nothing to you then read the link. Literally killing your own customers to make the line go up isn’t a sound business strategy.