4 ms·

You not solving their/society's problem doesn't make it unethical.

monkeybutton 5y ago
Maybe if they'd paid their fair share in taxes, they'd feel less guilty about the ethics. As it stands, they're not exactly helping society fix these problems.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Apple builds tens of millions of products every year that increase productivity. They're not indebted to society, let alone to the US where they are providing billions in salaries and capital appreciation income.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    Of course they are, without society enfircing property rights then anyone could do the same. They also owe (as everyone does) society for even being in a state where they can exist and operate. They depend on society exstentially. It's not like they paid for infrastructure, business ecosyatem, the conditions for consumers to consume, etc. Without societ they'd be nothing at all.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      Society gets high quality products that enhance productivity, and enormous tax revenue that more than makes up for any public services that could conceivably contribute to their productivity, so of course they're not indebted to society. >>Without societ they'd be nothing at all. Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving.
      - guerrilla 5y ago
        You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. > Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving. Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That's a difference you're missing.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. Yes we buy it because the money we pay is worth less to us than the product that they provide us in the exchange. That is what trade results in: both parties benefiting. Put another way, they are not indebted on account of benefiting from this trade, given they are contributing something of even greater value in exchange for that benefit, and have no more obligation toward society, on account of engaging in large volumes of mutually beneficial trade, than any one else. >> On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. That funding is for public research that is freely given away. You can't release scientific knowledge into the public domain and then claim those who benefit from it are indebted. That would be a false pretense of "public domain". Moreover, the tax revenue generated by Apple, its US-based suppliers and its employees, allows for significant amounts of funding for public research that benefits society at large. >>Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That applies to every constituent of society. We cannot say that every single individual owes to society more than it is owed on that account, or else it would mean some non-existent element of society should receive payment on the collective debt of the constituents of society.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- judge2020 5y ago
  For reference: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/401776-apple-argued-its-buildings-were-worth-200-instead-of-1-billion-to-reduce https://thehill.com/policy/technology/401776-apple-argued-it...
sp332 5y ago
You think Apple should take actions that lead to a bunch of people dying, but without ethically being responsible for the result. That's not really how it works. It's a shitty situation but we can still hold people accountable for how they decide to react to it.
- true_religion 5y ago
  Nope. I think the government should take action. It should build housing for the homeless and move them out of Apples parking lot. What other solution is there?
  - sp332 5y ago
    Apple is working on it... kinda? https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-commits-two-point-five-billion-to-combat-housing-crisis-in-california/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-commits-two-poi... I'm not saying that initiative is bad in itself, but Apple has historically fought tax assessments according to https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/silicon-valley-companies-like-google-apple-fueling-housing-crisis.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/silicon-valley-companies-lik... and that money could have improved things over time instead of forcing a crisis now. They also expanded their offices and built a new headquarters in a place with little housing. https://48hills.org/2015/11/another-16000-apple-workers-looking-for-housing/ https://48hills.org/2015/11/another-16000-apple-workers-look... So they actively made it difficult for the "the government" to work, e.g. deny office expansion that could not be staffed with available housing, or pay for housing expansion.
    - true_religion 5y ago
      The second article kind of makes it clear that there are two governments at work here, and they are at odds. San Fran approves office space, but no housing. Thus people live in San Jose (ironically where apple was founded originally). That said… I don’t really see how this relates to homelessness in San Fran as according to the article Apple workers don’t live their anyways. It’s a bit of a reach to say Apple is to blame for building an office building in the commercial district of the hottest tech city on the west coast after getting government approval. The SF government ought to either approve more housing, or reduce economic pressure by refusing office spaces. That it does neither is a systemic failure.
awsthro00945 5y ago
Apple is part of this society, and has a responsibility (not to mention a direct interest) in helping to solve, or at the very least to not make worse, its society's problems. The same goes for you, by the way.

Maybe if they'd paid their fair share in taxes, they'd feel less guilty about the ethics. As it stands, they're not exactly helping society fix these problems.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
Apple builds tens of millions of products every year that increase productivity. They're not indebted to society, let alone to the US where they are providing billions in salaries and capital appreciation income.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Of course they are, without society enfircing property rights then anyone could do the same. They also owe (as everyone does) society for even being in a state where they can exist and operate. They depend on society exstentially. It's not like they paid for infrastructure, business ecosyatem, the conditions for consumers to consume, etc. Without societ they'd be nothing at all.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Society gets high quality products that enhance productivity, and enormous tax revenue that more than makes up for any public services that could conceivably contribute to their productivity, so of course they're not indebted to society. >>Without societ they'd be nothing at all. Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. > Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving. Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That's a difference you're missing.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. Yes we buy it because the money we pay is worth less to us than the product that they provide us in the exchange. That is what trade results in: both parties benefiting. Put another way, they are not indebted on account of benefiting from this trade, given they are contributing something of even greater value in exchange for that benefit, and have no more obligation toward society, on account of engaging in large volumes of mutually beneficial trade, than any one else. >> On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. That funding is for public research that is freely given away. You can't release scientific knowledge into the public domain and then claim those who benefit from it are indebted. That would be a false pretense of "public domain". Moreover, the tax revenue generated by Apple, its US-based suppliers and its employees, allows for significant amounts of funding for public research that benefits society at large. >>Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That applies to every constituent of society. We cannot say that every single individual owes to society more than it is owed on that account, or else it would mean some non-existent element of society should receive payment on the collective debt of the constituents of society.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
judge2020 5y ago
For reference: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/401776-apple-argued-its-buildings-were-worth-200-instead-of-1-billion-to-reduce https://thehill.com/policy/technology/401776-apple-argued-it...

sp332 5y ago

You think Apple should take actions that lead to a bunch of people dying, but without ethically being responsible for the result. That's not really how it works. It's a shitty situation but we can still hold people accountable for how they decide to react to it.

true_religion 5y ago
Nope. I think the government should take action. It should build housing for the homeless and move them out of Apples parking lot. What other solution is there?
- sp332 5y ago
  Apple is working on it... kinda? https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-commits-two-point-five-billion-to-combat-housing-crisis-in-california/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-commits-two-poi... I'm not saying that initiative is bad in itself, but Apple has historically fought tax assessments according to https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/silicon-valley-companies-like-google-apple-fueling-housing-crisis.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/silicon-valley-companies-lik... and that money could have improved things over time instead of forcing a crisis now. They also expanded their offices and built a new headquarters in a place with little housing. https://48hills.org/2015/11/another-16000-apple-workers-looking-for-housing/ https://48hills.org/2015/11/another-16000-apple-workers-look... So they actively made it difficult for the "the government" to work, e.g. deny office expansion that could not be staffed with available housing, or pay for housing expansion.
  - true_religion 5y ago
    The second article kind of makes it clear that there are two governments at work here, and they are at odds. San Fran approves office space, but no housing. Thus people live in San Jose (ironically where apple was founded originally). That said… I don’t really see how this relates to homelessness in San Fran as according to the article Apple workers don’t live their anyways. It’s a bit of a reach to say Apple is to blame for building an office building in the commercial district of the hottest tech city on the west coast after getting government approval. The SF government ought to either approve more housing, or reduce economic pressure by refusing office spaces. That it does neither is a systemic failure.

awsthro00945 5y ago

Apple is part of this society, and has a responsibility (not to mention a direct interest) in helping to solve, or at the very least to not make worse, its society's problems. The same goes for you, by the way.