4 ms·

While I'm grateful to live in a world without Nazis (in power) or (legal) slavery, my bafflement stems from the newness of the concept of corporations taking up

by 4wsn 5y ago

While I'm grateful to live in a world without Nazis (in power) or (legal) slavery, my bafflement stems from the newness of the concept of corporations taking up the role of upholding moral standards. Up until now corporations have focused on what they do best, which is making money, and the role of government is to legislate laws that reflect the ethics and morality of its people. This has worked pretty well so far. For example, tobacco companies can't legally sell cigarettes to 12 year olds. My bafflement is, why the change? Why must Apple, or any other corporation take up a role that previously belonged to the government?

kinjba11 5y ago
You are right - typically government is responsible for stopping bad behavior. However, in the US especially, there is a widespread feeling that at the highest levels of government where these problems are addressed, the leadership is (take your pick) incompetent, ineffective, captured by lobbying, obstructed, too slow, or otherwise prevented one way or another from doing the right thing. The standard role bearer is broken. That's reason #1. Corps are often very powerful and influential as well. Why shouldn't they take on a role larger than making money? If I became a corporation, do I get a free pass to be unethical, and commit atrocities as long as it's lawful? No. I would be shunned by society. Corporations seem to have long had a free pass. We should hold all entities to equal ethical standards and expectations, and respond in every way possible both as individuals and governments when those standards are violated. The laws around selling tobacco would never have happened without individual action first. Corporations need ethics too. I rather like it when our corporations follow our morals, I get tired of being cynical. That's reason #2. Apple and other companies are global entities. Mini-states in their own right in a way. Trillion-dollar companies have enormous, global power. It may be lawful to follow a law in country X when in country Y that same law would be illegal or widely condemned. How is a government supposed to respond to global entities? Say those same tobacco companies sell to minors in another country where it is legal. There's not exactly an established legal precedent as far as I know. Is it still evil to sell to minors? Yes. Legal imbalance exists for global entities, so governments hands are often tied. That's reason #3. So, nobody is around to motivate Apple and other corps to do the right thing. There should be consequences to abetting abhorrent laws and censorship. Everyone cheered when Apple stood up to the FBI and refused to assist hacking a suspect's phone. Everyone booed when Blizzard and other companies buckled and went along with the CCP censorship. Corps need to be punished for bad behavior (or knowingly working with or for criminals) somehow, and (here's the cynical view) they will only pay attention if it hurts their bottom line.
- 4wsn 5y ago
  Like you said, the biggest corporations have become mini-states with enormous power. I don't know what the solution is, but assigning them, however informally, the role of deciding on ethical standards isn't a sustainable solution to government ineffectiveness. I don't disagree that the mechanisms of government are in a sorry state, but this happened _despite_ all the built in checks and balances. I worry what the approach you're suggesting is going to lead to after a few decades, considering you're using a mechanism (corporations) that evolved for one purpose; to make money. I do see where you're coming from regarding cynicism. I don't find it ethical to allow corporations to sell cigarettes to 12 year olds in countries where that's legal, but I'd rather they be allowed to do that than to take up the role of ethical enforcers, further taking away that burden from government and reducing the pressure for meaningful reform. I guess I also have less faith in our ethical standards than you do. We're not yet at a state where we have a coherent, stable ethical framework. Things that were condemned 20 years ago are being celebrated, and we seem to be in a state of constant change and instability. It's why I feel foolish taking stances on what is and isn't abhorrent for other nations. I most certainly don't want to live in China or have Chinese-style laws in my country, but at the same time I'm not in a position where I can praise or condemn the Chinese for how they're doing things. Strong-arming the world into mirroring my ethical standards is only going to lead to even more division and hatred, rather than the desired result of a more ethical world. Expecting other nations to smile when we criticize them and condemning them when they don't listen is unrealistic. As for your last point, I suppose it's the free-will of the consumer to punish corporations in the only way they respond to; their bottom line. This is effective when it comes to product and service quality, in that if you don't like it don't buy it. The corporation has to either improve its offerings or lose its market position. But the result of asking them to take ethical positions turns things into a PR game with no meaningful results other than making the public feel better. For example, Blizzard didn't internally change or have an ethical awakening after what they did. All they're going to do is invest more into PR to avoid looking bad in the future. Nothing changes. If you've had any interaction with the sorts of people that rise to senior positions in _any_ corporation you'll realize such people, like politicians, are incapable of any sort of genuine ethical conviction.
  - 5y ago

by 4wsn 5y ago

kinjba11 5y ago

You are right - typically government is responsible for stopping bad behavior. However, in the US especially, there is a widespread feeling that at the highest levels of government where these problems are addressed, the leadership is (take your pick) incompetent, ineffective, captured by lobbying, obstructed, too slow, or otherwise prevented one way or another from doing the right thing. The standard role bearer is broken. That's reason #1. Corps are often very powerful and influential as well. Why shouldn't they take on a role larger than making money? If I became a corporation, do I get a free pass to be unethical, and commit atrocities as long as it's lawful? No. I would be shunned by society. Corporations seem to have long had a free pass. We should hold all entities to equal ethical standards and expectations, and respond in every way possible both as individuals and governments when those standards are violated. The laws around selling tobacco would never have happened without individual action first. Corporations need ethics too. I rather like it when our corporations follow our morals, I get tired of being cynical. That's reason #2. Apple and other companies are global entities. Mini-states in their own right in a way. Trillion-dollar companies have enormous, global power. It may be lawful to follow a law in country X when in country Y that same law would be illegal or widely condemned. How is a government supposed to respond to global entities? Say those same tobacco companies sell to minors in another country where it is legal. There's not exactly an established legal precedent as far as I know. Is it still evil to sell to minors? Yes. Legal imbalance exists for global entities, so governments hands are often tied. That's reason #3. So, nobody is around to motivate Apple and other corps to do the right thing. There should be consequences to abetting abhorrent laws and censorship. Everyone cheered when Apple stood up to the FBI and refused to assist hacking a suspect's phone. Everyone booed when Blizzard and other companies buckled and went along with the CCP censorship. Corps need to be punished for bad behavior (or knowingly working with or for criminals) somehow, and (here's the cynical view) they will only pay attention if it hurts their bottom line.

4wsn 5y ago
Like you said, the biggest corporations have become mini-states with enormous power. I don't know what the solution is, but assigning them, however informally, the role of deciding on ethical standards isn't a sustainable solution to government ineffectiveness. I don't disagree that the mechanisms of government are in a sorry state, but this happened _despite_ all the built in checks and balances. I worry what the approach you're suggesting is going to lead to after a few decades, considering you're using a mechanism (corporations) that evolved for one purpose; to make money. I do see where you're coming from regarding cynicism. I don't find it ethical to allow corporations to sell cigarettes to 12 year olds in countries where that's legal, but I'd rather they be allowed to do that than to take up the role of ethical enforcers, further taking away that burden from government and reducing the pressure for meaningful reform. I guess I also have less faith in our ethical standards than you do. We're not yet at a state where we have a coherent, stable ethical framework. Things that were condemned 20 years ago are being celebrated, and we seem to be in a state of constant change and instability. It's why I feel foolish taking stances on what is and isn't abhorrent for other nations. I most certainly don't want to live in China or have Chinese-style laws in my country, but at the same time I'm not in a position where I can praise or condemn the Chinese for how they're doing things. Strong-arming the world into mirroring my ethical standards is only going to lead to even more division and hatred, rather than the desired result of a more ethical world. Expecting other nations to smile when we criticize them and condemning them when they don't listen is unrealistic. As for your last point, I suppose it's the free-will of the consumer to punish corporations in the only way they respond to; their bottom line. This is effective when it comes to product and service quality, in that if you don't like it don't buy it. The corporation has to either improve its offerings or lose its market position. But the result of asking them to take ethical positions turns things into a PR game with no meaningful results other than making the public feel better. For example, Blizzard didn't internally change or have an ethical awakening after what they did. All they're going to do is invest more into PR to avoid looking bad in the future. Nothing changes. If you've had any interaction with the sorts of people that rise to senior positions in _any_ corporation you'll realize such people, like politicians, are incapable of any sort of genuine ethical conviction.
- 5y ago