3 ms·
The people who have executive power in the leadership structure of companies control what companies do. The leadership structure is determined by the Chief Exe
by mhartl 15y ago
The people who have executive power in the leadership structure of companies control what companies do.
The leadership structure is determined by the Chief Executive, who is appointed by the Board of Directors, who are elected by the shareholders, i.e., the owners. Q.E.D.
(Lest you accuse me again of naïveté, I'm aware that there remains a principal-agent problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem); when an angel becomes available to serve as CEO, I suggest doing your level best to get him the job.)
By your formulation, there is no way to argue that company A is violating ethical norms.
The whole point of my formulation is that it is silent on ethical questions. If you find it unethical that Company A uses child labor, you can buy from their competitors, or organize a boycott, or lobby to make their practice illegal—and I might well join you. Supposing that Company A is a standard joint-stock company, your actions would serve to align their interests (maximize value) with yours (be ethical according to your criteria). There is no conflict between your actions of protest and the statement "The company owners determine its actions"; as categories, is and ought are orthogonal.
should be held ethically responsible
Note the passive voice in this statement: "be held responsible". By whom? When people say that corporations should "be held responsible", what they means is, "We want to hold corporations responsible [is] according to our system of ethics [ought]." In other words, stripped of all camouflage, it is a naked grab for power. It's a generally well-intentioned power grab, of course, and depending on your system of ethics you might consider their achieving power to be a good thing. But Robespierre had good intentions, too, and the road to hell, etc.
- barrkel 15y agoYou acknowledge the principle/agent problem, yet you pretend it doesn't exist in your QED; your demonstrandum was not convincingly demonstrated. What if company A has a monopoly owing to being cheaper than any possible competition that does not use child labour? Would your argument for introducing a law against it not be an ethical argument governing the permissible actions of companies? We want to hold corporations responsible [is] according to our system of ethics [ought]." In other words, stripped of all camouflage, it is a naked grab for power Well yes, I do rather prefer government to anarchy. I'm sorry to say that if you see this as a "naked grab for power", I have little more to add, and am unwilling to continue a conversation with you. This is because, unless I'm mistaken, you are denying the very basis of democratic government ("we", the majority) in defense of something much more dangerous (the oligopoly of wealth and executive power). Someone who would do that is not someone I would trust; it is someone I'd rather shun.
- mhartl 15y agothe very basis of democratic government ("we", the majority) Come now—you don't even believe this. The majority used to support legal chattel slavery. Did that make slavery right? Killing Native Americans and taking their land was pretty popular, too. And what about the overwhelming popular support for the Anschluss Österreichs that brought Austria under Nazi rule? Und so weiter. You can believe in ethical government, or you can believe in the ethical principle of "majority rule", but you can't believe in both. Think about that the next time you slam someone for questioning "democracy". If you shun me, it's not because I'm dangerous or untrustworthy, but rather because you are a Jedi and I am a Sith. (Suffice to say you've been exposed to a lot of anti-Sith propaganda.) Don't worry—I, too, was once a Jedi, and I don't take it personally. Luckily, it's never too late to come over to the Dark Side.