25 ms·
There were no repercussions at all to their competitor (and, the Supreme Court sided with them), so it was logically the right move for a corporation. If the co
by voiceblue 2y ago
There were no repercussions at all to their competitor (and, the Supreme Court sided with them), so it was logically the right move for a corporation. If the country or its people don’t bring the repercussions now, why wouldn’t these things continue to happen? It’s not a corporations job to regulate itself. If anything we can only blame the short sightedness and pettiness of humanity, which is causing bigger issues to flourish today.
- jgeada 2y agoThis is the thing that frustrates me so much about this sort of discussion: Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it is ethical. We keep dismissing ethics as any consideration from business conduct. It is legal to ignore any and all environmental costs that have not yet been made illegal, so are corporations duty bound to ignore any obvious deleterious consequences as long as there is money to make today? Something feels very wrong about this approach.
- ctippett 2y agoI'm not sure I follow your train of thought. What sort of repercussions are you alluding to?
- voiceblue 2y agoI’m just saying it’s not “corporate jealousy”, it’s a rational strategic decision. If you want it to stop, you have to affect the rationale.
- brenschluss 2y agoThis either 1) assumes a homeomorphism between rationality and ethics, or 2) is technically true but missing the point. Akin to saying: "Human deaths via a tsunami isn't a 'bad thing', it's a natural phenomenon"