3 ms·

The person who nailed this best for me was Terry Smith, a successful UK fund manager (Fundsmith). He was asked a question at an investor meeting many years ago

The person who nailed this best for me was Terry Smith, a successful UK fund manager (Fundsmith). He was asked a question at an investor meeting many years ago about why they thought it ethically acceptable to invest in British American Tobacco (unfortunately I can’t find a clip), he simply replied they were an investor and not a moral judge of society or in the market of making ethical judgments. While companies were legal entities that they could legally invest in, and gave good returns to their investors, they would continue to invest in profitable companies to deliver returns for their investors. It was entirely up to people to disagree, not invest, lobby politicians and alter the laws, etc., at which point the companies wouldn’t exist anymore and they could then no longer invest in them. It just simply wasn’t his/their job to police companies morally. It’s a bittersweet conundrum - I agree with him wholeheartedly, but also people can/should vote with their feet (money) and refuse to give these companies money if legally they are still allowed to exist and you disagree morally with what they do/stand for. Unfortunately I can’t find the specific conversation I’m looking for, but the article [1] lightly touches on the subject. [2] is worth watching as he actually delves a bit deeper why tobacco is such a good investment for them how and governments have almost made the big tobacco companies bullet proof as an investment. We see this all the time now across society - people love seeing western companies with rainbow flags, meanwhile ignoring a World Cup being held in Qatar in a few months under shocking morals, sponsored by same said companies, totally ignoring diversity, etc. because it’s a different market. Different markets have different morals and companies know/play to this. We should call these companies out for their absolute disgraceful hypocrisy. Really you have two choices - vote with your feet and starve these companies of oxygen (money) wholly to force change, or lobby your politicians. Don’t expect morality from businesses. They only exist for one reason and one reason only - to make profits and return value to their investors. Look at how you can alter that equation and you just might change things for the better. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/sep/20/terry-smith-attack-ethical-funds-ill-informed https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/sep/20/terry-smith-at... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CaFpDi1BO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CaFpDi1BO0

reducesuffering 4y ago
Ultimately, this is the same line of thinking used by drug dealers and cartels. “It’s where consumer demand is, I’m just going where $ is and supplying a need. They should stop using my addictive product.” You’ll then say, well, it’s as long as it’s legal. And then you’ve outsourced your morals to the letter of the law, in which you’d be a dutiful Nazi in The Third Reich.
- christoph 4y ago
  I think that’s what I was ultimately trying to say at the time, but you’ve articulated it far better in one paragraph, than I managed to in five or six.
  - reducesuffering 4y ago
    I don't think we agree. You say: "It just simply wasn’t his/their job to police companies morally. It’s a bittersweet conundrum - I agree with him wholeheartedly" And pawn off responsibility to consumers under the current system. I don't absolve people that say "it's not my job, I just follow the $." They still have a moral duty to help their fellow humans and not just chase the bottom line.

reducesuffering 4y ago

Ultimately, this is the same line of thinking used by drug dealers and cartels. “It’s where consumer demand is, I’m just going where $ is and supplying a need. They should stop using my addictive product.” You’ll then say, well, it’s as long as it’s legal. And then you’ve outsourced your morals to the letter of the law, in which you’d be a dutiful Nazi in The Third Reich.

christoph 4y ago
I think that’s what I was ultimately trying to say at the time, but you’ve articulated it far better in one paragraph, than I managed to in five or six.
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  I don't think we agree. You say: "It just simply wasn’t his/their job to police companies morally. It’s a bittersweet conundrum - I agree with him wholeheartedly" And pawn off responsibility to consumers under the current system. I don't absolve people that say "it's not my job, I just follow the $." They still have a moral duty to help their fellow humans and not just chase the bottom line.