5 ms·

Corporations do not have any moral at all. It is always virtue signaling when they pretend they do have.

zpeti 5y ago
While broadly I can agree with you, a corporation is still made up of people, and is lead by people. It’s perfectly possible for someone with a backbone to lead a corporation in a moral way.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  In which case, it's the people and not the corporate structure itself which are providing that moral guide.
  - Nevermark 5y ago
    Organizations can be moral in two ways: 1. As you note: They are made up of people, usually only a few with the ultimate power. Whatever the legal or organizational structures, human morality is inherited from the decision makers. 2. But also: Aside from the individuals, decision making structures within any organization (or mechanism for that matter) can be set up to align with morality or not. I.e. incentives, metrics, business model alignment, transparency, codes of conduct, etc., can all have significant moral implications. For instance, governments can be designed to be more or less moral. I.e. democracy vs. autocracy. Human's are not a special moral creation. We would not be surprised by aliens with a moral component, even if they are built very differently than us. Look inside a human and you will also find non- or sub-moral components whose configuration enables moral, immoral, or amoral behavior.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      In the "can be" vs. "is" argument, a point that's frequently neglected is what's the prevelance of the circumstance argued? How many commercial business corporate entities are explicitly structured with a moral focus as their principle organising principle? Would that even stand up under corporate law in most jurisdictions (e.g., Delaware, where the state supreme court has pretty much upheld the Friedman "shareholder value" mistake)? Because that's what really matters here. I don't follow your final paragraph. Are you arguing that humans are not moral, or that morality isn't a strictly human phenomenon? I'd disagree with the first, generally, and agree with the second. For the second, experiments with animals show innate senses of "fair" and "unfair" as well as group alignment of behaviours, which may not be a moral code, though they seem to me the evolutionary basis of one.
      - Nevermark 5y ago
        I was arguing that morality isn't a strictly human phenomenon. -- I don't think a "moral focus as their principle organizing principle" is necessary for a moral corporation any more than I think it is necessary for a moral human. It's enough that a company's structure, whether implicitly or explicitly, aligns itself with the long term good for all stakeholders, i.e. the greater good. As apposed to aligning with short term or short sighted good at the expense of long term and wider focused good. After all, some "good" people are just expressing their personality as it naturally developed. Others are intentionally expressing principles they spent years considering. Is one type of "good" person better than the other? And of course the opposite: Some seemingly evil people are acting on the only instincts they seem to have, while others are well aware of the damage they do. Both people might have the same IQ, access to situational awareness, etc., so we are likely to judge both the same, but their actions can come from very different places internally. Morality is clearest at the behavioral level of a system or human. Less clear the deeper into the internal causes one looks.
        dredmorbius 5y ago
        The structure of a firm does NOT align with all stakeholders. It aligns principally with shareholders and creditors. The strongest advocates of the firm would have you believe it aligns only with shareholders.
        Nevermark 5y ago
        I disagree with what you stated explicitly. But from the nuance of what you stated, maybe we are in agreement. A structure of a firm does not NECESSARILY align with all stakeholders. That doesn't mean that there are not firms designed by their founders and leaders to be more moral than that.
- PicassoCTs 5y ago
  The cells in the body of a murderer could have stopped him/her, if they had seized the moment. But they did not. Thus there are endless philosophical arguments about free will to be had, but for practicality, we assume the outermost shell with the most control, is responsible for the inner components. If we treat cooperation like persons, they should be judged and sentenced as person. Including restructuring of malformed processes and life-time-imprisonment for anti-social behaviour
  - cyberge99 5y ago
    Could you imagine the criminal reforms that would result from a world in which corporations could be sentenced to death?
    - Yoric 5y ago
      That... actually sounds like a very interesting idea.
    - fmajid 5y ago
      That’s what actually happened to accounting firm Arthur Andersen for its role in the Enron fraud and bankruptcy. I’m all in favor of the corporate death penalty. Originally corporations were chartered under authority of the king for a limited time, typically 20 to 30 years, so great was the mistrust in them.
  - bongcloud420 5y ago
    I don't understand this comparison. Corporations are not actually people, they're made up of people, that really do make decisions about things.
- penguin_booze 5y ago
  Often, the share holders will make sure that is not the case, at least not for long.
- rhizome31 5y ago
  Once upon a time, I was in a situation to stand against a project which I judged morally unacceptable. Colleagues actually reacted more harshly than management. "What are you doing!? This is work!", I was told, as if moral considerations had no room in the work place. Reaction from management was smoother: "We're glad everyone can express their opinions here. But we'll do it anyway." (luckily for me in the end they didn't get the contract)
ManBlanket 5y ago
Do no evil... Except when it's profitable.

While broadly I can agree with you, a corporation is still made up of people, and is lead by people. It’s perfectly possible for someone with a backbone to lead a corporation in a moral way.

dredmorbius 5y ago
In which case, it's the people and not the corporate structure itself which are providing that moral guide.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  Organizations can be moral in two ways: 1. As you note: They are made up of people, usually only a few with the ultimate power. Whatever the legal or organizational structures, human morality is inherited from the decision makers. 2. But also: Aside from the individuals, decision making structures within any organization (or mechanism for that matter) can be set up to align with morality or not. I.e. incentives, metrics, business model alignment, transparency, codes of conduct, etc., can all have significant moral implications. For instance, governments can be designed to be more or less moral. I.e. democracy vs. autocracy. Human's are not a special moral creation. We would not be surprised by aliens with a moral component, even if they are built very differently than us. Look inside a human and you will also find non- or sub-moral components whose configuration enables moral, immoral, or amoral behavior.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    In the "can be" vs. "is" argument, a point that's frequently neglected is what's the prevelance of the circumstance argued? How many commercial business corporate entities are explicitly structured with a moral focus as their principle organising principle? Would that even stand up under corporate law in most jurisdictions (e.g., Delaware, where the state supreme court has pretty much upheld the Friedman "shareholder value" mistake)? Because that's what really matters here. I don't follow your final paragraph. Are you arguing that humans are not moral, or that morality isn't a strictly human phenomenon? I'd disagree with the first, generally, and agree with the second. For the second, experiments with animals show innate senses of "fair" and "unfair" as well as group alignment of behaviours, which may not be a moral code, though they seem to me the evolutionary basis of one.
    - Nevermark 5y ago
      I was arguing that morality isn't a strictly human phenomenon. -- I don't think a "moral focus as their principle organizing principle" is necessary for a moral corporation any more than I think it is necessary for a moral human. It's enough that a company's structure, whether implicitly or explicitly, aligns itself with the long term good for all stakeholders, i.e. the greater good. As apposed to aligning with short term or short sighted good at the expense of long term and wider focused good. After all, some "good" people are just expressing their personality as it naturally developed. Others are intentionally expressing principles they spent years considering. Is one type of "good" person better than the other? And of course the opposite: Some seemingly evil people are acting on the only instincts they seem to have, while others are well aware of the damage they do. Both people might have the same IQ, access to situational awareness, etc., so we are likely to judge both the same, but their actions can come from very different places internally. Morality is clearest at the behavioral level of a system or human. Less clear the deeper into the internal causes one looks.
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        The structure of a firm does NOT align with all stakeholders. It aligns principally with shareholders and creditors. The strongest advocates of the firm would have you believe it aligns only with shareholders.
        Nevermark 5y ago
        I disagree with what you stated explicitly. But from the nuance of what you stated, maybe we are in agreement. A structure of a firm does not NECESSARILY align with all stakeholders. That doesn't mean that there are not firms designed by their founders and leaders to be more moral than that.
PicassoCTs 5y ago
The cells in the body of a murderer could have stopped him/her, if they had seized the moment. But they did not. Thus there are endless philosophical arguments about free will to be had, but for practicality, we assume the outermost shell with the most control, is responsible for the inner components. If we treat cooperation like persons, they should be judged and sentenced as person. Including restructuring of malformed processes and life-time-imprisonment for anti-social behaviour
- cyberge99 5y ago
  Could you imagine the criminal reforms that would result from a world in which corporations could be sentenced to death?
  - Yoric 5y ago
    That... actually sounds like a very interesting idea.
  - fmajid 5y ago
    That’s what actually happened to accounting firm Arthur Andersen for its role in the Enron fraud and bankruptcy. I’m all in favor of the corporate death penalty. Originally corporations were chartered under authority of the king for a limited time, typically 20 to 30 years, so great was the mistrust in them.
- bongcloud420 5y ago
  I don't understand this comparison. Corporations are not actually people, they're made up of people, that really do make decisions about things.
penguin_booze 5y ago
Often, the share holders will make sure that is not the case, at least not for long.
rhizome31 5y ago
Once upon a time, I was in a situation to stand against a project which I judged morally unacceptable. Colleagues actually reacted more harshly than management. "What are you doing!? This is work!", I was told, as if moral considerations had no room in the work place. Reaction from management was smoother: "We're glad everyone can express their opinions here. But we'll do it anyway." (luckily for me in the end they didn't get the contract)

ManBlanket 5y ago

Do no evil... Except when it's profitable.