3 ms·
Let's apply the same logic to people then. "John scammed his neighbour of his life savings, we don't need to lock him up because lots of people will refuse to a
by underwater 3y ago
Let's apply the same logic to people then. "John scammed his neighbour of his life savings, we don't need to lock him up because lots of people will refuse to associate with him or supply him with goods and services."
Making loss of business or minor fines the only mechanism for correcting behaviour, means that the leaders can view antisocial and unethical behaviour as a cost benefit tradeoff. And the lack of personal accountability means the company leadership has very limited downside, even if they completely screw up.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoCrimes of moral turpitude (e.g. fraud), and even some lesser civil acts, are sometimes punished by denying the convicted person the right to have an executive job for a period of years. And various forms of shunning have been codified into laws for a long time, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism But yes, I agree, the codification and conviction is better than non-governmental individual or group action.