2 ms·

If a company wants free speech and other rights normally granted to people, they can and should be held to moral standards in the same way we hold people to mor

If a company wants free speech and other rights normally granted to people, they can and should be held to moral standards in the same way we hold people to moral standards. And we, in fact, often do. We're holding Disney responsible for its actions based on a moral stance here. We support (or decry) Namecheap for it's actions in disallowing Russian citizens access to its services. I'd go so far as to say those who do not pit Disney's actions against their own moral code "because profits" are the outliers, the outliers who are only louder when there's little cause for evaluating a company's morals. Now then, do I characterize cigarette companies as sociopaths? You bet I do. Advertising to children, interfering with inquiries into their safety for people in general, and profiteering off addiction can all be linked to sociopathic tendencies. EDIT: This: "But if it interferes too much with the overall function of maximizing shareholder value, then they'll be replaced" is demonstrably not true. Target and Costco, as two examples, have policies in place that prevent them from paying unreasonably low wages (like Wallmart does). This directly lowers "shareholder value" since it reduces profit dramatically, yet they haven't replaced all of Target or Costco's leadership. Amoral behavior is a choice, not a directive.

bitshiftfaced 5y ago
> they can and should be held to moral standards in the same way we hold people to moral standards. Of course they are. If the public perceives a company as immoral, then they'll refuse to buy from them. If a company has a bad enough reputation, they'll have to close down. Why? You see how it all goes back to profitability in the end? I would argue that Target and Costco are trying to capture a certain demographic by paying/treating employees better. They could use that to get a better margin, for example. Or, maybe they see value in having a higher quality staff. Or maybe it's really just about getting brownie points for doing the right thing, and capitalizing that reputation.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Companies have to thrive in the world; you don't sh-t where you eat. They need thriving communities and economies, to provide customers, employees, wealth, roads, air travel, legal systems, etc. etc. etc. Also, companies are run by human beings, and human beings care about others and have morals, and will to a degree act on them regardless of profit. It's interesting that people expect humans do other unprofitable things, especially corrupt ones, but insist we won't do moral unprofitable things.

bitshiftfaced 5y ago

> they can and should be held to moral standards in the same way we hold people to moral standards. Of course they are. If the public perceives a company as immoral, then they'll refuse to buy from them. If a company has a bad enough reputation, they'll have to close down. Why? You see how it all goes back to profitability in the end? I would argue that Target and Costco are trying to capture a certain demographic by paying/treating employees better. They could use that to get a better margin, for example. Or, maybe they see value in having a higher quality staff. Or maybe it's really just about getting brownie points for doing the right thing, and capitalizing that reputation.

wolverine876 5y ago
Companies have to thrive in the world; you don't sh-t where you eat. They need thriving communities and economies, to provide customers, employees, wealth, roads, air travel, legal systems, etc. etc. etc. Also, companies are run by human beings, and human beings care about others and have morals, and will to a degree act on them regardless of profit. It's interesting that people expect humans do other unprofitable things, especially corrupt ones, but insist we won't do moral unprofitable things.