3 ms·

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 organizat

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.

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.