3 ms·

Part of the problem with CEO's and corporations in general is that they are legally obligated to make decisions in the best interests of their shareholders, whi

Part of the problem with CEO's and corporations in general is that they are legally obligated to make decisions in the best interests of their shareholders, which also typically is highly aligned with their own incentives. What looks like an immoral decision from the rank and file POV is highly rational and maybe at worst amoral when considered in their fiduciary context.

munk-a 3y ago
Just to clarify, IANAL, but the "legally obligated to maximize profit" is a misinterpretation of Dodge vs. Ford[1]. It was a very radical decision for the time and hasn't been rescinded but still allows executives a wide degree of freedom in decision making. Acting morally is often highly rational and, whether a maximally efficient decision or not, is, IMO, the correct decision - whether there are clear consequences for acting immorally or not. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.