3 ms·

I refer you to my first question. Why are you so willing to absolve the leaders of their responsibility to behave within a societally understood moral compass?

I refer you to my first question. Why are you so willing to absolve the leaders of their responsibility to behave within a societally understood moral compass? That same moral compass which without they would not be able to function or operate? >Like it not, my comment is how corporations work. We've tried letting them have in-built morality, but guess what, it didn't work before, and it doesn't work now. Except it isn't, they rely on the morality of their WORKERS to achieve their objectives. You simply believe that leaders and decision makers get a free pass on ignoring morality while anyone without sufficient power must behave morally lest they be punished. How does boot polish taste?

satvikpendem 4y ago
> Why are you so willing to absolve the leaders of their responsibility to behave within a societally understood moral compass? And I refer you to my first sentence in my reply. > How does boot polish taste? I see, this is how I can tell you are not asking in good faith. Goodbye, new account made just 13 days ago.
- dawdaway 4y ago
  Demonstrating that I must behave according to the moral compass you believe those with extraordinary power are exempt from also following. Fitting.
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    Strange response, looks like the parent said (a few times even) they're not exempt morally but seems like you're still trying to insinuate that the parent thinks they are.
    - dawdaway 4y ago
      Please quote me the sentences where the parent says they are not morally exempt. >"Clearly?" Why? How is it clear at all? If there are no consequences or benefits for doing so (and indeed, a highly beneficial outcome by not doing so), why should they? Quite obviously implies that corporations are justified in optimizing for their own benefit without factoring morality. The anecdote provided about Larry Ellison has the same implication. The parent saying an approximation of "I'm just explaining how the world works" is not only incorrect, patronizing and overly general but also implies that corporations are just a force of nature rather than a group of people who should be held responsible for the immorality of their decisions.

satvikpendem 4y ago

> Why are you so willing to absolve the leaders of their responsibility to behave within a societally understood moral compass? And I refer you to my first sentence in my reply. > How does boot polish taste? I see, this is how I can tell you are not asking in good faith. Goodbye, new account made just 13 days ago.

dawdaway 4y ago
Demonstrating that I must behave according to the moral compass you believe those with extraordinary power are exempt from also following. Fitting.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  Strange response, looks like the parent said (a few times even) they're not exempt morally but seems like you're still trying to insinuate that the parent thinks they are.
  - dawdaway 4y ago
    Please quote me the sentences where the parent says they are not morally exempt. >"Clearly?" Why? How is it clear at all? If there are no consequences or benefits for doing so (and indeed, a highly beneficial outcome by not doing so), why should they? Quite obviously implies that corporations are justified in optimizing for their own benefit without factoring morality. The anecdote provided about Larry Ellison has the same implication. The parent saying an approximation of "I'm just explaining how the world works" is not only incorrect, patronizing and overly general but also implies that corporations are just a force of nature rather than a group of people who should be held responsible for the immorality of their decisions.