4 ms·

Let's be Honest, Ethics only matter to Corporations when finances are negatively affected.

bheadmaster 3y ago
I'm wary of anyone claiming to be the arbiter of ethics in general. It always sounds like just authoritarianism in disguise.
nullc 3y ago
I think corporations caring about ethics in so far as it impacts the bottom line is a much safer outcome than them caring about ethics as a terminal objective... All serious atrocities that have been done in the history of man have been done by people who believed what they were doing was good. Trying too hard to be good is exactly how you do evil, and not just conventional banal evil, but the truly horrifying stuff like outright genocide. Ethics as triggered by bottom line concerns becomes part of a feedback cycle involving the greater market. It provides a way to stem some of the worst ethical transgressions without having much potential for running off on a tangent and doing evil by trying too hard to do "good", as those efforts will also hurt the bottom line. Greed follows incentives, so collectively we can predict and control much of the harm it can create. When some person or organization is motivated by belief it's going to be much less responsive and we better hope that their beliefs are exactly right or that the entity doesn't have much power. It's easy and common for bloated quasi-monopolists to engage in an awful lot of activity which has little to do with improving the bottom line, so the the mere existence of ambient capitalism isn't sufficient to ward off misguided and out of control do-gooding. It can be particularly bad when they do since they begin the activities with a lot of power (which they usually gained through productive activities in the past before they were diverted). Overwrought claims of do-gooding are also easily abused to undermine our civil process and steam roll protections which were established because our forebearers recognized the risk of popular whim and expedience. A few "think of the childrens" and you've deputized the state to carry out your campaign of oppression. We're a bit less willing to roll over just because someone wants to make more money. I don't mean to argue that what you get from profit driven ethics is great or that we can't supplement it with other backstops (including regulations, whistleblower protections, a non-precarious employment situation so people can follow their consciences, etc) but you really can do much worse than "is ethical in so far as its profitable, is unethical in so as it's profitable and you can get away with it", and I think that perspective is important. From this position it's easier to see how google's transition from "Don't be evil" to "Do the right thing" can be seen in an absolutely chilling light.

I'm wary of anyone claiming to be the arbiter of ethics in general. It always sounds like just authoritarianism in disguise.

nullc 3y ago

I think corporations caring about ethics in so far as it impacts the bottom line is a much safer outcome than them caring about ethics as a terminal objective... All serious atrocities that have been done in the history of man have been done by people who believed what they were doing was good. Trying too hard to be good is exactly how you do evil, and not just conventional banal evil, but the truly horrifying stuff like outright genocide. Ethics as triggered by bottom line concerns becomes part of a feedback cycle involving the greater market. It provides a way to stem some of the worst ethical transgressions without having much potential for running off on a tangent and doing evil by trying too hard to do "good", as those efforts will also hurt the bottom line. Greed follows incentives, so collectively we can predict and control much of the harm it can create. When some person or organization is motivated by belief it's going to be much less responsive and we better hope that their beliefs are exactly right or that the entity doesn't have much power. It's easy and common for bloated quasi-monopolists to engage in an awful lot of activity which has little to do with improving the bottom line, so the the mere existence of ambient capitalism isn't sufficient to ward off misguided and out of control do-gooding. It can be particularly bad when they do since they begin the activities with a lot of power (which they usually gained through productive activities in the past before they were diverted). Overwrought claims of do-gooding are also easily abused to undermine our civil process and steam roll protections which were established because our forebearers recognized the risk of popular whim and expedience. A few "think of the childrens" and you've deputized the state to carry out your campaign of oppression. We're a bit less willing to roll over just because someone wants to make more money. I don't mean to argue that what you get from profit driven ethics is great or that we can't supplement it with other backstops (including regulations, whistleblower protections, a non-precarious employment situation so people can follow their consciences, etc) but you really can do much worse than "is ethical in so far as its profitable, is unethical in so as it's profitable and you can get away with it", and I think that perspective is important. From this position it's easier to see how google's transition from "Don't be evil" to "Do the right thing" can be seen in an absolutely chilling light.