5 ms·

The OP contradicts your theory: "In Fort’s case, Google did not comply with the summons for any of the accounts. The company responded to the DHS by saying it

by mmooss 2mo ago

The OP contradicts your theory: "In Fort’s case, Google did not comply with the summons for any of the accounts. The company responded to the DHS by saying it had not offered evidence of how it was related to a customs investigation." > companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions The world is more complicated than that; they make both kinds of decisions and many decisions aren't clearly in one basket or the other. Humans don't biologically change to amoral creatures when they pull into the office parking lot (despite theories to the contrary or attempts to encourage it), nor are they absolved of human responsibility when doing things for which they are paid.

schubidubiduba 2mo ago
The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible. Dividing it on the shoulders of many people, making nobody in particular feel responsible for the damages themselves. Gaslighting employees into thinking they are doing the "lesser evil" or something. Just following commans of their boss.
- parineum 2mo ago
  > The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible. Citation needed.
  - fwn 2mo ago
    If this area of research interests you, look into Thompsons "Designing Responsibility: The Problem of Many Hands in Complex Organizations" from 2017 or Bovens ur-werk "The Quest for Responsibility" from 1998. Diffusion of moral responsibility in complex organizations is not a new observation. The Wikipedia article leans a bit too much on the psychology and not on the organizational design / decision architecture, but is still a good entry point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
hackyhacky 2mo ago
> human responsibility Not sure what this means. I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty": the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact.
- SR2Z 2mo ago
  I don't know why people keep repeating this. The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders but the interests of shareholders go beyond just "make as much money as possible." It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. The shareholders get to vote, if they don't like it they'll make that clear.
  - hackyhacky 2mo ago
    > The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders I think you don't understand what this phrase means. In a publicly-traded company, "the interest of the shareholders" does not mean "whatever the shareholders want"; it means "whatever is best for the company." That means money. It may be possible to be both profitable and moral; but if it isn't, the fiduciary duty obligates corporate officers to choose the profitable path rather than the moral one. The easy way of looking at this is that there beyond complying with the law, there is no general obligation for companies to behave morally, but there is a general obligation to behave profitably. So it's not hard to see why they make they choices they do. > It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. It is, but it's a lot easier to be not sustainable and not moral.
    - mmooss 2mo ago
      > there is no general obligation for companies to behave morally, but there is a general obligation to behave profitably What is that based on? I'd say there are certainly obligations for both. The fact that some ignore those obligations - either obligation, for example when corrupt management stuffs its own pockets - doesn't make them less.

by mmooss 2mo ago

schubidubiduba 2mo ago

The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible. Dividing it on the shoulders of many people, making nobody in particular feel responsible for the damages themselves. Gaslighting employees into thinking they are doing the "lesser evil" or something. Just following commans of their boss.

parineum 2mo ago
> The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible. Citation needed.
- fwn 2mo ago
  If this area of research interests you, look into Thompsons "Designing Responsibility: The Problem of Many Hands in Complex Organizations" from 2017 or Bovens ur-werk "The Quest for Responsibility" from 1998. Diffusion of moral responsibility in complex organizations is not a new observation. The Wikipedia article leans a bit too much on the psychology and not on the organizational design / decision architecture, but is still a good entry point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

hackyhacky 2mo ago

> human responsibility Not sure what this means. I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty": the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact.

SR2Z 2mo ago
I don't know why people keep repeating this. The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders but the interests of shareholders go beyond just "make as much money as possible." It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. The shareholders get to vote, if they don't like it they'll make that clear.
- hackyhacky 2mo ago
  > The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders I think you don't understand what this phrase means. In a publicly-traded company, "the interest of the shareholders" does not mean "whatever the shareholders want"; it means "whatever is best for the company." That means money. It may be possible to be both profitable and moral; but if it isn't, the fiduciary duty obligates corporate officers to choose the profitable path rather than the moral one. The easy way of looking at this is that there beyond complying with the law, there is no general obligation for companies to behave morally, but there is a general obligation to behave profitably. So it's not hard to see why they make they choices they do. > It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. It is, but it's a lot easier to be not sustainable and not moral.
  - mmooss 2mo ago
    > there is no general obligation for companies to behave morally, but there is a general obligation to behave profitably What is that based on? I'd say there are certainly obligations for both. The fact that some ignore those obligations - either obligation, for example when corrupt management stuffs its own pockets - doesn't make them less.