3 ms·
They are not arguing from moral consensus, but merely appearing to. It is useful for a company to appear to take the moral high ground in order to increase prof
by cercatrova 6y ago
They are not arguing from moral consensus, but merely appearing to. It is useful for a company to appear to take the moral high ground in order to increase profits while also not actually doing so of course. See BLM, and others.
- renewiltord 6y agoStrictly, I suppose they're making no argument at all since they are merely asserting a fact: Amazon isn't paying more. There is an implicit other statement: "this is notable". And I suspect an implicit third piece "it is notably bad". None of these are arguments but one could imagine that the last one stems from "because we all think it's bad". Of course, absent justification one could just dismiss that last one out of hand instead.
- cercatrova 6y agoYes, it assumes companies are bad because they don't follow individual moral standards, but organizations are not individuals and cannot be judged the same way. I would even go so far as to say that because there are so many people in it that the entire organization is an amoral entity.
- renewiltord 6y agoI actually disagree with you on this front (that corp behaviour cannot be judged on a moral/immoral scale) but the argument is too long to type out. And in any case it doesn't matter since we agree on the part that matters (there is no justification yet provided for Amazon's actions to be judged immoral).
- cercatrova 6y agoI actually wrote a big thread on r/changemyview that you could probably find haha, about organizations being amoral entities.
- renewiltord 6y agoHaha, same username?
- cercatrova 6y agoUnfortunately not. You'll find it though, I don't want to share my username here publicly.