3 ms·
Your supposition that they fail to uphold the common good is unsubstantiated (and arguably must be, because it is arguably wrong.). And arguably a corporation
by kriops 3y ago
Your supposition that they fail to uphold the common good is unsubstantiated (and arguably must be, because it is arguably wrong.).
And arguably a corporation can neither be moral nor immoral, as only its individual stakeholders are moral actors.
- zanellato19 3y agoA corporation is a collection of people. If these people are doing immoral actions, so is the corporation. Everything that happens by human action is moral or immoral.
- kriops 3y agoHow do you suppose one should aggregate the contributions from all the different stakeholders? I don’t think you can.
- nsagent 3y agoIt seems you might be arguing a that it's untenable to account for individual actions. While a precise measurement is certainly infeasible, there are numerous philosophical frameworks that look to aggregate morality on a scale that can be compared, e.g. Utilitarianism and Consequentialism.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoAs far as I am aware many people have tried to prove so under those 'philosophical frameworks', but they've never succeeded so far. If you know of one, can you link a proof?
- zanellato19 3y agoWhat do you even mean by proof here? I'll do it differently. A State is a collection of many people, and a lot of States do evil things. The dictatorships in the Middle East, for example, and there is another example I won't include, but you can guess. Do you not see those organizations (because States are organizations at the end of the day), as evil? If corporations in those countries help those regimes, do you think those corporations are still amoral?
- MichaelZuo 3y agoProof of an actual, bonafide, non self-contradicting, etc..., 'philosophical frameworks that look to aggregate morality on a scale that can be compared'?