6 ms·

Just because it's in your best interest to fuck over the world doesn't mean it's morally justifiable. The fact is that the people profiting from Big Oil would h

Just because it's in your best interest to fuck over the world doesn't mean it's morally justifiable. The fact is that the people profiting from Big Oil would have still been plenty rich enough if they did campaign against their own product, so their choice to withhold this information can only be attributed to plain greed. We don't expect murderers to turn themselves in, we pay police forces to find them. But it's not hypocritical to call murderers evil, and it's not unreasonable to expect that people should not murder.

sokoloff 4y ago
Some of the people profiting from oil usage are you and me. We get (relatively) cheap transportation, cheap heating, cheap power, a huge variety of foods without regard to season, cheap vacations, etc, etc. IMO, it's less "all those other bad people are enjoying running fossil fuel companies" than it is "all of us people are enjoying the benefits of fossil fuel burning". (I daily an EV; I don't pretend that makes me any better than the average American, which is to say I am substantially worse than the average Earthling.)
- lasfter 4y ago
  Are you saying Exxon is justified because people get to use oil? It's not about burning fossil fuels, it's about misinforming the public about the long-term dangers of your product. If I sell you a delicious candy while secretly knowing it will give you cancer in 10 years, I don't get to say "well you enjoyed the candy didn't you?" once I'm caught out.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I'm saying when we point a finger at the oil companies who sell us the oil that we demand and consume, we should recognize that there are three fingers pointing back at us. Are they blameless? Nope. Are they solely (or even primarily) to blame? Also nope.
    - lasfter 4y ago
      I don't know what argument you are trying to respond to. I'm saying it is an evil act to supply a product while withholding the knowledge that it will cause massive long-term harm to the entire world. How are consumers complicit? By wanting nice things?
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        Yes: consumers are complicit by demanding the oil. Don't want Exxon, Shell, BP, et al to dig up the oil? Don't do things that consume oil and they'll stop doing it for you. But that's inconvenient, so consumers keep demanding oil and then act shocked and tut-tut when oil companies provide it.
        lasfter 4y ago
        What choice is there for consumers but to demand oil? If cities create suburban sprawl and inadequate public transportation, it's the consumer's fault for using a car? If every industry whose products I require to participate in society uses oil, how can I choose otherwise? I really don't understand your point and your smug judgements on consumers. Do you consume no oil products? Or are you just saying that you knew all along oil is bad so you're better than the 'naive masses'? I'm not shocked that oil companies provide oil, I'm shocked that many people don't want to take any action even when it comes out that the oil companies baldly lied about their role in climate change. I'm also baffled that some people want to shift the blame away from the oil companies.
        sokoloff 4y ago
        I think the reductionist blame-shifting of "consumers get a pass because not buying oil is inconvenient because <reasons>" is unhelpful. I don't get confused or pretend that oil companies go to great lengths to provide oil to the world because they're evil. They do it because people (you and me and billions of others) demand it and benefit from it. We can't reap the benefits and avoid the blame for our choices. (I mean, we obviously can, but that doesn't actually result in any change, so if you want to feel better but not actually change anything, have at it...)
adam_arthur 4y ago
Oil and coal have lifted more out of poverty than possibly any other invention/discovery in the modern era. The key is not to villainize fossil fuels, but to recognize their benefits and costs and decide collectively via policy what tradeoffs we’re willing to make. Think about how privileged you are in life that you can even consider not depending on fossil fuels. Hysterical takes like yours come across completely naive and uninformed.
- lasfter 4y ago
  I'm not vilifying fossil fuels. I'm vilifying fossil fuel companies. > recognize their benefits and costs and decide collectively via policy what tradeoffs we’re willing to make How can we do that when fossil fuel companies lie about the benefits and costs? How can we do that when they bribe politicians for favorable legislation? You are the naive one, and not particularly well-informed given you did not even read the article.
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    Why would you ask fossil fuel companies about the cost/benefit to begin with? They are a biased party It may feel cathartic to lash out at perceived “evil” entities but you accomplish nothing that way. Some prefer perception of justice to actual results though, so to each their own. I think you’d find a world without fossil fuels has quite a bit more misery than the one we have today. Green transition needs to be well thought out and planned for, not taken lightly
    - lasfter 4y ago
      > Why would you ask fossil fuel companies about the cost/benefit to begin with? Indeed, tell that to the politicians who made their energy policy decisions based on conversations with oil lobbies. I feel no catharsis from commenting, and I don't pretend that bad press is 'justice'. Justice would be prison time for the people in charge that suppressed this information. I have no way of working toward this vision of society other than bitching to politicians and peers about every individual company's moral fuck ups. What actual results are you working towards? What is your version of justice in this case?
satvikpendem 4y ago
> Just because it's in your best interest to fuck over the world doesn't mean it's morally justifiable. When people talk about corporations and morality, I am reminded about the quip about Larry Ellison: > You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Think of a corporation like a function called `makeMoney`, which takes inputs like costs, advantages, benefits, and so on. Morality is not an input parameter at all, so why do people expect that it would be taken into account? If one wants morality to be taken into account, it should be explicitly done so, via some sort of input parameter, like legislation. Otherwise, don't expect anything to change.
- lasfter 4y ago
  I agree, but plenty of people seem to think this excuses immoral behavior by corporations. You can even see a couple in this thread. We can't really get effective legislation passed until we can agree that it is indeed bad for a corporation to lie, cause harm, etc, and that misbehaving corporations (and more importantly, the people who lead them) should be punished.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  > Morality is not an input parameter at all, so why do people expect that it would be taken into account? Do people expect it or do they merely want to change things such that it is an input parameter? Just because sociopaths are allowed to run rampant and fuck up everything for the rest of us doesn't mean we have to like it and it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing something about it.
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  Reputation plays a role. Legislation can be bought.
- dawdaway 4y ago
  Why are you so willing to absolve all responsibility from decision makers? Corporations do not act but for the behest of their controllers and decision makers, who clearly should take morality into account. Larry Ellison is not a lawnmower, he is a person who is responsible for the decisions he makes and how those decisions effect those around him. Larry Ellison CAN hate you, Larry Ellison COULD give a shit about you. He chooses not to. He deserves the negative repercussions from decisions he makes. It is simply inane to demand that every aspect of morality must be legislated before corporate owners and decision makers should include it as a factor. It is only the security afforded to them by the rest of the population permitting them to continue operating that allows them to operate as they do. Frankly, your point is far less insightful than you think.

sokoloff 4y ago

Some of the people profiting from oil usage are you and me. We get (relatively) cheap transportation, cheap heating, cheap power, a huge variety of foods without regard to season, cheap vacations, etc, etc. IMO, it's less "all those other bad people are enjoying running fossil fuel companies" than it is "all of us people are enjoying the benefits of fossil fuel burning". (I daily an EV; I don't pretend that makes me any better than the average American, which is to say I am substantially worse than the average Earthling.)

lasfter 4y ago
Are you saying Exxon is justified because people get to use oil? It's not about burning fossil fuels, it's about misinforming the public about the long-term dangers of your product. If I sell you a delicious candy while secretly knowing it will give you cancer in 10 years, I don't get to say "well you enjoyed the candy didn't you?" once I'm caught out.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I'm saying when we point a finger at the oil companies who sell us the oil that we demand and consume, we should recognize that there are three fingers pointing back at us. Are they blameless? Nope. Are they solely (or even primarily) to blame? Also nope.
  - lasfter 4y ago
    I don't know what argument you are trying to respond to. I'm saying it is an evil act to supply a product while withholding the knowledge that it will cause massive long-term harm to the entire world. How are consumers complicit? By wanting nice things?
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      Yes: consumers are complicit by demanding the oil. Don't want Exxon, Shell, BP, et al to dig up the oil? Don't do things that consume oil and they'll stop doing it for you. But that's inconvenient, so consumers keep demanding oil and then act shocked and tut-tut when oil companies provide it.
      - lasfter 4y ago
        What choice is there for consumers but to demand oil? If cities create suburban sprawl and inadequate public transportation, it's the consumer's fault for using a car? If every industry whose products I require to participate in society uses oil, how can I choose otherwise? I really don't understand your point and your smug judgements on consumers. Do you consume no oil products? Or are you just saying that you knew all along oil is bad so you're better than the 'naive masses'? I'm not shocked that oil companies provide oil, I'm shocked that many people don't want to take any action even when it comes out that the oil companies baldly lied about their role in climate change. I'm also baffled that some people want to shift the blame away from the oil companies.
        sokoloff 4y ago
        I think the reductionist blame-shifting of "consumers get a pass because not buying oil is inconvenient because <reasons>" is unhelpful. I don't get confused or pretend that oil companies go to great lengths to provide oil to the world because they're evil. They do it because people (you and me and billions of others) demand it and benefit from it. We can't reap the benefits and avoid the blame for our choices. (I mean, we obviously can, but that doesn't actually result in any change, so if you want to feel better but not actually change anything, have at it...)

adam_arthur 4y ago

Oil and coal have lifted more out of poverty than possibly any other invention/discovery in the modern era. The key is not to villainize fossil fuels, but to recognize their benefits and costs and decide collectively via policy what tradeoffs we’re willing to make. Think about how privileged you are in life that you can even consider not depending on fossil fuels. Hysterical takes like yours come across completely naive and uninformed.

lasfter 4y ago
I'm not vilifying fossil fuels. I'm vilifying fossil fuel companies. > recognize their benefits and costs and decide collectively via policy what tradeoffs we’re willing to make How can we do that when fossil fuel companies lie about the benefits and costs? How can we do that when they bribe politicians for favorable legislation? You are the naive one, and not particularly well-informed given you did not even read the article.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  Why would you ask fossil fuel companies about the cost/benefit to begin with? They are a biased party It may feel cathartic to lash out at perceived “evil” entities but you accomplish nothing that way. Some prefer perception of justice to actual results though, so to each their own. I think you’d find a world without fossil fuels has quite a bit more misery than the one we have today. Green transition needs to be well thought out and planned for, not taken lightly
  - lasfter 4y ago
    > Why would you ask fossil fuel companies about the cost/benefit to begin with? Indeed, tell that to the politicians who made their energy policy decisions based on conversations with oil lobbies. I feel no catharsis from commenting, and I don't pretend that bad press is 'justice'. Justice would be prison time for the people in charge that suppressed this information. I have no way of working toward this vision of society other than bitching to politicians and peers about every individual company's moral fuck ups. What actual results are you working towards? What is your version of justice in this case?

satvikpendem 4y ago

> Just because it's in your best interest to fuck over the world doesn't mean it's morally justifiable. When people talk about corporations and morality, I am reminded about the quip about Larry Ellison: > You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Think of a corporation like a function called `makeMoney`, which takes inputs like costs, advantages, benefits, and so on. Morality is not an input parameter at all, so why do people expect that it would be taken into account? If one wants morality to be taken into account, it should be explicitly done so, via some sort of input parameter, like legislation. Otherwise, don't expect anything to change.

lasfter 4y ago
I agree, but plenty of people seem to think this excuses immoral behavior by corporations. You can even see a couple in this thread. We can't really get effective legislation passed until we can agree that it is indeed bad for a corporation to lie, cause harm, etc, and that misbehaving corporations (and more importantly, the people who lead them) should be punished.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
> Morality is not an input parameter at all, so why do people expect that it would be taken into account? Do people expect it or do they merely want to change things such that it is an input parameter? Just because sociopaths are allowed to run rampant and fuck up everything for the rest of us doesn't mean we have to like it and it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing something about it.
jokethrowaway 4y ago
Reputation plays a role. Legislation can be bought.
dawdaway 4y ago
Why are you so willing to absolve all responsibility from decision makers? Corporations do not act but for the behest of their controllers and decision makers, who clearly should take morality into account. Larry Ellison is not a lawnmower, he is a person who is responsible for the decisions he makes and how those decisions effect those around him. Larry Ellison CAN hate you, Larry Ellison COULD give a shit about you. He chooses not to. He deserves the negative repercussions from decisions he makes. It is simply inane to demand that every aspect of morality must be legislated before corporate owners and decision makers should include it as a factor. It is only the security afforded to them by the rest of the population permitting them to continue operating that allows them to operate as they do. Frankly, your point is far less insightful than you think.