3 ms·

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 consisten

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.