4 ms·

> nor that they have an once of ethics It still find it odd that people think large corporations actively engage in ethics in any other capacity than for PR an

> nor that they have an once of ethics It still find it odd that people think large corporations actively engage in ethics in any other capacity than for PR and manipulating public opinion. I have never in my life seen anything other than the smallest of private companies make a decision based on "ethical" reasons where there was a competing financial reason. Can you recall, over your entire career, where a product decision was made for ethical (rather than purely PR or legal) reasons? I have witness several companies where bringing up ethical concerns about company behavior ultimately leads to termination. The most obvious example of this non-ethical nature of corporations is record companies bringing up the "unethical" behavior of piracy. It's not like the heads of these companies had a big ethics meeting and decided "hey piracy is not ethical, we need to fight it!" or otherwise they would have also been like "and... next on the agenda is the unethical profiting of black musicians in the 50s and 60s, we should start cutting some checks now since that was clearly wrong." Ethics is a social construction, created by participants in a society, as a way of organizing and regulating behavior. Ethics is subtle, flexible and perpetually evolving. We as a collective can develop and evolve our ethics overtime, but the essential part is that everyone is playing the same game. Corporations are not playing the game at all, "ethics" from the view of a corporate entity is just another tool they can use to manipulate public opinion, but they don't participate in the ethics game. The problem is that they participating in society in an asymmetric way. They want everyone else to adhere to an ethical system when interacting with them, but consider themself completely outside the realm of ethics. When normal humans decide that they do not want to participate in the ethics game there are consequences ranging from mild chastisement to complete estrangement from society depending on the degree one individual refuses to participate in the ethical system of the larger society. This is not to say corporations are evil, but that are absolutely amoral in that they are not participating the moral and ethical game. Bears are amoral in the same way. We don't expect bears to make ethical decisions, but when they habitually violate the ethical code of the humans they interact with, they are usually put down as a threat to society.

sophrocyne 4y ago
> Can you recall, over your entire career, where a product decision was made for ethical (rather than purely PR or legal) reasons? Yes, because I made them. As a nation built on capitalism, it is those who are able to influence the decisions of corporations that bear the burden and responsibility of the decisions made by those corporations. Whether those individuals are held accountable or not is irrelevant to the fact that ethics certainly ought to be considered for any individual involved who believes themselves to be "acting ethically". I've worked hard in my career to get a seat at the table where those decisions are made because I recognize that is a place where good can be done, at scale. We should hold ourselves, and capitalism, to higher standards. And for those of us who are leaders, whether that is a small start-up or a major conglomerate, we are responsible for creating an environment where ethical decisions can be made.
- trasz 4y ago
  >it is those who are able to influence the decisions of corporations that bear the burden and responsibility This is an interesting idea, and I agree that it would be great if it were true, but it’s not, and I don’t think it’s ever been. Those who make decisions for corporations don’t bear any burden; everyone else does.
  - time_to_smile 4y ago
    Parent also conveniently states: > Whether those individuals are held accountable or not is irrelevant This is actually a perfect example of the point I was making. "I want the benefits of participating in an ethical system but don't want the consequences". This is why people claim that corporations behave like sociopaths. A bear (from my example), isn't a sociopath, because it doesn't expect moral behavior from you, nor does it expect to benefit from moral behavior applied to it. A bear is perfectly amoral. A bear may cause you harm, and you may harm a bear, you might feel bad you had to kill a bear, but the bear will not be concerned either way with your ethical system, it simply wants to eat and live. A sociopath on the other hand takes advantage of moral asymmetry, expecting you to treat it like a person when you interact with it (for example showing mercy for its trespasses), but wanting to be free to act like a bear in regards to serving its own ends.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

sophrocyne 4y ago

> Can you recall, over your entire career, where a product decision was made for ethical (rather than purely PR or legal) reasons? Yes, because I made them. As a nation built on capitalism, it is those who are able to influence the decisions of corporations that bear the burden and responsibility of the decisions made by those corporations. Whether those individuals are held accountable or not is irrelevant to the fact that ethics certainly ought to be considered for any individual involved who believes themselves to be "acting ethically". I've worked hard in my career to get a seat at the table where those decisions are made because I recognize that is a place where good can be done, at scale. We should hold ourselves, and capitalism, to higher standards. And for those of us who are leaders, whether that is a small start-up or a major conglomerate, we are responsible for creating an environment where ethical decisions can be made.

trasz 4y ago
>it is those who are able to influence the decisions of corporations that bear the burden and responsibility This is an interesting idea, and I agree that it would be great if it were true, but it’s not, and I don’t think it’s ever been. Those who make decisions for corporations don’t bear any burden; everyone else does.
- time_to_smile 4y ago
  Parent also conveniently states: > Whether those individuals are held accountable or not is irrelevant This is actually a perfect example of the point I was making. "I want the benefits of participating in an ethical system but don't want the consequences". This is why people claim that corporations behave like sociopaths. A bear (from my example), isn't a sociopath, because it doesn't expect moral behavior from you, nor does it expect to benefit from moral behavior applied to it. A bear is perfectly amoral. A bear may cause you harm, and you may harm a bear, you might feel bad you had to kill a bear, but the bear will not be concerned either way with your ethical system, it simply wants to eat and live. A sociopath on the other hand takes advantage of moral asymmetry, expecting you to treat it like a person when you interact with it (for example showing mercy for its trespasses), but wanting to be free to act like a bear in regards to serving its own ends.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]