3 ms·

I understand the usual argument against this. I used to make them too. “Corporations are many people following processes - they’re not a person!” - I used to sa

I understand the usual argument against this. I used to make them too. “Corporations are many people following processes - they’re not a person!” - I used to say. Here is another philosophical argument - it neither supports or refutes the title of this post but it’s worth exploring. People, are multi-cellular organisms. Each cell, is a living thing in its own right. Billions of them working together form this illusion of one cohesive human being. What keeps all the cells working together are some “processes” codified in their shared DNA. Though every now and then, some of them choose to rebel against the existing rules and detract. These are the cancer cells - which only follow the processes within their mutated DNA. I think I could go on for quite a bit. It just boggles my mind to think these strategies are so universal. So forming a corporation to organize a large group of people is a tried and tested strategy.

jampekka 3y ago
I think the problem is that humans (and other animals) exhibit very different patterns of behavior than e.g. corporations. For example when a human is consistently nice to you, you start to assume that they are a "nice person" which entails things like they're likely to help you if you're in need (and hopefully vice versa). You model their behavior after how you behave yourself, e.g. that because I'd be worried if she is in trouble, she's probably worried if I'm in trouble. There are no such "nice companies". They operate on a totally different logic and "DGAF" if they can get away with it. Apple's not gonna bring food to you if you're bedridden no matter how much you've spent on them. I don't think it's anything philosophical. Just how you model and predict behavior of different kinds of entities. What's a thing of its own right is just a matter of conceptualization.
- 000ooo000 3y ago
  It's interesting to think that if a corporation is humans, in the sense that they are made of humans, and human behaviour drives the behaviour of the corporation, then which human behaviours end up dominating the corporation's behaviour, and which human behaviours are absent? I would think that corporation behavior is a subset of human behaviour, and I can't imagine that it's our most noble behaviours in that subset. There's a doco called The Corporation which profiles corps as psychopaths. Worth a watch.

jampekka 3y ago

I think the problem is that humans (and other animals) exhibit very different patterns of behavior than e.g. corporations. For example when a human is consistently nice to you, you start to assume that they are a "nice person" which entails things like they're likely to help you if you're in need (and hopefully vice versa). You model their behavior after how you behave yourself, e.g. that because I'd be worried if she is in trouble, she's probably worried if I'm in trouble. There are no such "nice companies". They operate on a totally different logic and "DGAF" if they can get away with it. Apple's not gonna bring food to you if you're bedridden no matter how much you've spent on them. I don't think it's anything philosophical. Just how you model and predict behavior of different kinds of entities. What's a thing of its own right is just a matter of conceptualization.

000ooo000 3y ago
It's interesting to think that if a corporation is humans, in the sense that they are made of humans, and human behaviour drives the behaviour of the corporation, then which human behaviours end up dominating the corporation's behaviour, and which human behaviours are absent? I would think that corporation behavior is a subset of human behaviour, and I can't imagine that it's our most noble behaviours in that subset. There's a doco called The Corporation which profiles corps as psychopaths. Worth a watch.