4 ms·

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,

by 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.

kinjba11 5y ago
"Ethical enforcers" is putting it a bit strongly. There is such a thing as soft power, and some ideas take years or decades to percolate through a culture. Like you said > things that were condemned 20 years ago are being celebrated now, and we seem to be in a state of constant change and instability I wouldn't have it any other way. You can't change people's minds with force, only time and pressure. Antislavery sentiment was strong and growing in the 1800s - if you lived in that time, could you imagine someone saying "I feel foolish taking stances on what is and isn't abhorrent"? Slavery is abhorrent - period. Despite that, actual civil rights ideas took decades to take hold even after the extremely violent Civil War. The same applies to many ideas today. This doesn't mean ethics aren't worth fighting for, that you should sit back and passively watch as society decides for you that slavery-by-different-name or some other horrible idea is OK. You can't strong-arm people into believing something. You're right it leads to "division and hatred". However, mirrored ethical standards on the other hand are required for civilization to work. In fact, many of these ethical standards are encoded into laws which are in turn enforced with the state's monopoly on violence (e.g. police, military, swat). For Blizzard and some companies are perhaps ran by sociopaths. In which case, all they learned is that they need better PR. But I'm sure some companies (aka the people leading those companies) did listen. Do you really think everyone in the top ranks of a corporation is a sociopath? That's a bit cynical for my taste.
- 4wsn 5y ago
  > Antislavery sentiment was strong and growing in the 1800s - if you lived in that time, could you imagine someone saying "I feel foolish taking stances on what is and isn't abhorrent"? Slavery is abhorrent - period. It's tricky to judge people in the past, or to try to get a sense of how one would act if transported to that time. We're not inherently better than the people that came before us; we're still the same species. It's easy to take a stand against slavery today, but not so easy if you can see the Civil War on the horizon and all the ruin it brought. I can't judge people who adopted positions in 1830 I find disgusting today from the comfort of 2021, when I lose nothing from my position and they had everything to lose. > The same applies to many ideas today. This doesn't mean ethics aren't worth fighting for, that you should sit back and passively watch as society decides for you that slavery-by-different-name or some other horrible idea is OK. You can't strong-arm people into believing something. You're right it leads to "division and hatred". However, mirrored ethical standards on the other hand are required for civilization to work. I think you're underplaying the effect of "division and hatred" and where it can lead. You can't build a better world by tearing down your current world. I agree that mirrored ethical standards are required for civilization to work, but you have to strike a balance between avoiding stagnation and excessive compromise and maintaining a degree of social harmony. We're currently building a world where the ethical divisions between citizens of the same country are greater than the ethical divisions between nations in previous eras. To think this will end well for anyone is unrealistically optimistic. > Do you really think everyone in the top ranks of a corporation is a sociopath? That's a bit cynical for my taste. Yes it's cynical, but that's been my experience so far. I've been fortunate enough to encounter a lot of people that are genuinely _good_ and to call some of them close friends, but I never saw any of their qualities in people that occupy the c-suite. Maybe I'm wrong in my generalization, but I think it's a fairly safe assumption to make given the evidence. In any case, I suppose I'm no longer "baffled" like in my OP. I'm starting to see the logic behind the attitude of expecting corporations to take ethical positions. Thank you for clarifying things.

by 4wsn 5y ago

kinjba11 5y ago

"Ethical enforcers" is putting it a bit strongly. There is such a thing as soft power, and some ideas take years or decades to percolate through a culture. Like you said > things that were condemned 20 years ago are being celebrated now, and we seem to be in a state of constant change and instability I wouldn't have it any other way. You can't change people's minds with force, only time and pressure. Antislavery sentiment was strong and growing in the 1800s - if you lived in that time, could you imagine someone saying "I feel foolish taking stances on what is and isn't abhorrent"? Slavery is abhorrent - period. Despite that, actual civil rights ideas took decades to take hold even after the extremely violent Civil War. The same applies to many ideas today. This doesn't mean ethics aren't worth fighting for, that you should sit back and passively watch as society decides for you that slavery-by-different-name or some other horrible idea is OK. You can't strong-arm people into believing something. You're right it leads to "division and hatred". However, mirrored ethical standards on the other hand are required for civilization to work. In fact, many of these ethical standards are encoded into laws which are in turn enforced with the state's monopoly on violence (e.g. police, military, swat). For Blizzard and some companies are perhaps ran by sociopaths. In which case, all they learned is that they need better PR. But I'm sure some companies (aka the people leading those companies) did listen. Do you really think everyone in the top ranks of a corporation is a sociopath? That's a bit cynical for my taste.

4wsn 5y ago
> Antislavery sentiment was strong and growing in the 1800s - if you lived in that time, could you imagine someone saying "I feel foolish taking stances on what is and isn't abhorrent"? Slavery is abhorrent - period. It's tricky to judge people in the past, or to try to get a sense of how one would act if transported to that time. We're not inherently better than the people that came before us; we're still the same species. It's easy to take a stand against slavery today, but not so easy if you can see the Civil War on the horizon and all the ruin it brought. I can't judge people who adopted positions in 1830 I find disgusting today from the comfort of 2021, when I lose nothing from my position and they had everything to lose. > The same applies to many ideas today. This doesn't mean ethics aren't worth fighting for, that you should sit back and passively watch as society decides for you that slavery-by-different-name or some other horrible idea is OK. You can't strong-arm people into believing something. You're right it leads to "division and hatred". However, mirrored ethical standards on the other hand are required for civilization to work. I think you're underplaying the effect of "division and hatred" and where it can lead. You can't build a better world by tearing down your current world. I agree that mirrored ethical standards are required for civilization to work, but you have to strike a balance between avoiding stagnation and excessive compromise and maintaining a degree of social harmony. We're currently building a world where the ethical divisions between citizens of the same country are greater than the ethical divisions between nations in previous eras. To think this will end well for anyone is unrealistically optimistic. > Do you really think everyone in the top ranks of a corporation is a sociopath? That's a bit cynical for my taste. Yes it's cynical, but that's been my experience so far. I've been fortunate enough to encounter a lot of people that are genuinely _good_ and to call some of them close friends, but I never saw any of their qualities in people that occupy the c-suite. Maybe I'm wrong in my generalization, but I think it's a fairly safe assumption to make given the evidence. In any case, I suppose I'm no longer "baffled" like in my OP. I'm starting to see the logic behind the attitude of expecting corporations to take ethical positions. Thank you for clarifying things.