3 ms·

It has to do with the characteristic of the activity being "disgusting" as opposed to being "not in shareholder's interests," "not in customers' interests," or

It has to do with the characteristic of the activity being "disgusting" as opposed to being "not in shareholder's interests," "not in customers' interests," or even "not in society's interests." Both corporate behaviours have incited this kind of deeply emotional response. So it's interesting to ask someone if they have the same emotional response to each corporate behaviour. It would be very interesting to me if someone says they find patent trolling to be businesses making money according to the rules of the game as they are written but that same person thinks of Apple's behaviour as "disgusting." I am not suggesting anybody here has that response, just that I see that the question is interesting.

netcan 18y ago
Exactly. If neither of these behaviours are 'disgusting,' what is? IE if you don't find these disgusting, then you probably think that no business behaviour qualifies for this title. In that case, that comment is out of place. Why say 'why is this disgusting?' What you mean is 'There's no such thing as disgusting in business.
- raganwald 18y ago
  There's no such thing as disgusting in business No, there isn't. Business is amroal for the simple reason that corporations are not people. However, there is such a thing as disgusting when people make business decisions. The fact that someone owns a business or works for a business does not relive them of personal moral responsibility. A business is perfectly correct to decide that offshoring shoe manufacturing to copuntries with child labour is the right choice. A business is perfectly correct to decide that offshoring chemical manufacturing to countries with lax safety standards is the right choice. The people working for those businesses, on the other hand, are not off the hook. They cannot invoke the Nuremburg defence, for can they assert that since the business is devoid of responsibility, and they work for the business, their decisions while on the job are devoid of responsibility. Thus, speaking to another post here, I have no ethical problem with a firm that exists to commit patent extortion. However, I find the actions of its founders and employees disgusting.
  - netcan 18y ago
    I think there is a distinction between disgusting & amoral. One is an aesthetic judgement, the other is ethical.

netcan 18y ago

Exactly. If neither of these behaviours are 'disgusting,' what is? IE if you don't find these disgusting, then you probably think that no business behaviour qualifies for this title. In that case, that comment is out of place. Why say 'why is this disgusting?' What you mean is 'There's no such thing as disgusting in business.

raganwald 18y ago
There's no such thing as disgusting in business No, there isn't. Business is amroal for the simple reason that corporations are not people. However, there is such a thing as disgusting when people make business decisions. The fact that someone owns a business or works for a business does not relive them of personal moral responsibility. A business is perfectly correct to decide that offshoring shoe manufacturing to copuntries with child labour is the right choice. A business is perfectly correct to decide that offshoring chemical manufacturing to countries with lax safety standards is the right choice. The people working for those businesses, on the other hand, are not off the hook. They cannot invoke the Nuremburg defence, for can they assert that since the business is devoid of responsibility, and they work for the business, their decisions while on the job are devoid of responsibility. Thus, speaking to another post here, I have no ethical problem with a firm that exists to commit patent extortion. However, I find the actions of its founders and employees disgusting.
- netcan 18y ago
  I think there is a distinction between disgusting & amoral. One is an aesthetic judgement, the other is ethical.