4 ms·

> wrote that the company could “prevent citing of TH data by revealing him as noncredible.” > looked for ways to “exploit Hayes’ faults/problems.” > “If TH in

> wrote that the company could “prevent citing of TH data by revealing him as noncredible.” > looked for ways to “exploit Hayes’ faults/problems.” > “If TH involved in scandal, enviros will drop him,” Heh, I thought corporations being this unethical and immoral was only a movies thing, not something that actually happens. > She wrote, “What’s motivating Hayes?—basic question.” Wow. So, it's not malice, it's genuine curiosity? This company literally did not understand basic ethics?

wisty 13y ago
There's been a study in which role players consistently voted to keep a drug that was killing people on the market, to prop up the company's bottom line: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=marketing_papers http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139... It's quite similar to the Milgram experiment, in a way.
mikeash 13y ago
Corporations aren't really immoral, just amoral. If a human bit the head off a live baby seal, we'd probably call that evil. But when a polar bear does it, it's just the nature of the polar bear. It operates on instinct. Most corporations only care about their bottom line. Even if the individuals within them are moral, the structure tends to cancel that out. They are built to seek profit. If they obey the law, it is only because obeying the law maximizes profit. If they are moral, it is only because morality maximizes profit. On the other hand, if breaking the law maximizes profit (e.g. because enforcement is lax or penalties are low) then that's what they'll do. Likewise, if immoral acts make the most money, that's what they'll do. What Hollywood gets wrong is that corporations aren't intentionally evil. There's no CEO sitting in his office laughing maniacally about how his new project is going to kill widows and orphans. Hollywood always wants a villain, but in this case there isn't one. Villainy falls out of the corporate structure and lots of employees just doing their jobs to keep bread on the table. This is far from an isolated example, of course. Discrediting or destroying whistleblowers is what just about any corporation will do and has done, as long as they think the positives outweigh the negatives on next quarter's earnings statement.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >Corporations aren't really immoral, just amoral. >Most corporations only care about their bottom line. Even if the individuals within them are moral, the structure tends to cancel that out. It's ridiculous (and disastrous) that we grant this idea of corporate personhood, bestowing to companies the rights of people, but not the responsibility. It is a dangerous mindset which cooly accepts that corporations are amoral vs. immoral. At the end of the day, there are people who are making these decisions and people who are benefitting from them. If the decisions are immoral, then the corporation is immoral. If the corporation is engaged in immoral behavior, then the people are immoral. >What Hollywood gets wrong is that corporations aren't intentionally evil. There's no CEO sitting in his office laughing maniacally about how his new project is going to kill widows and orphans. I don't think I've ever seen a Hollywood movie wherein the CEO of a corporation laughed maniacally about doing something evil for its own sake. Instead, corporations and their leadership are always characterized as being driven by greed. >Hollywood always wants a villain, but in this case there isn't one. Sure, there is a villain. Those people who do evil things for the sake of greed, whether in Hollywood or IRL, are still villains and are rightly portrayed as such. To imply that evil deeds are not villainous if a person is driven by greed vs. sadism/insanity plays into the culture of corporate absolution and tacitly endorses the behavior.
  - dhimes 13y ago
    GP is saying, I believe, that the corporation's greed doesn't necessarily grow out of the greed of an individual, but rather out of an organization of individuals all trying to do their jobs. Each is responsible for making a small contribution to 'protecting the bottom line,' but as an organized system it makes the organization greedy. This is why we need strong regulations. I never liked them before, but now I've come to understand that they are required to allow the honest people to behave honestly. I've made a similar point here before: the same situation is occurring in the US' national intelligence groups right now. There is no 'evil' person trying to 'take away our rights.' There are just people who are responsible for protecting us who have been granted the authority to read our emails. What are they going to do? Not look? Suppose it was you? And tragedy happened and you later learned that had you looked you would have saved 2000 lives? You would have a hard time getting over it. So you look- trying to uphold the principles you believe in as you do so, but you look. However, as an organized system, with good people trying to do the right thing in each of their own small part, it's evil. That's why we need laws to prevent it. We need the laws to prevent evil results of good intentions.
cratermoon 13y ago
To corporations, if it's not about making money, then the motivation is unclear. Part of the reason why you hear the BS about climate scientists being money-driven (you know, all those fat 6- and 7-figure salaries, and the multi-billion dollar grants?) is because of this narrow perception. The structural underpinnings of businesses like this make it nearly impossible for any other motivation than "how much profit can we make" to be a factor in planning.
10feet 13y ago
You understand that these moves came about because stuff like it actually happened in real life? The film Erin Brockovich is one example.

wisty 13y ago

There's been a study in which role players consistently voted to keep a drug that was killing people on the market, to prop up the company's bottom line: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=marketing_papers http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139... It's quite similar to the Milgram experiment, in a way.

mikeash 13y ago

Corporations aren't really immoral, just amoral. If a human bit the head off a live baby seal, we'd probably call that evil. But when a polar bear does it, it's just the nature of the polar bear. It operates on instinct. Most corporations only care about their bottom line. Even if the individuals within them are moral, the structure tends to cancel that out. They are built to seek profit. If they obey the law, it is only because obeying the law maximizes profit. If they are moral, it is only because morality maximizes profit. On the other hand, if breaking the law maximizes profit (e.g. because enforcement is lax or penalties are low) then that's what they'll do. Likewise, if immoral acts make the most money, that's what they'll do. What Hollywood gets wrong is that corporations aren't intentionally evil. There's no CEO sitting in his office laughing maniacally about how his new project is going to kill widows and orphans. Hollywood always wants a villain, but in this case there isn't one. Villainy falls out of the corporate structure and lots of employees just doing their jobs to keep bread on the table. This is far from an isolated example, of course. Discrediting or destroying whistleblowers is what just about any corporation will do and has done, as long as they think the positives outweigh the negatives on next quarter's earnings statement.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>Corporations aren't really immoral, just amoral. >Most corporations only care about their bottom line. Even if the individuals within them are moral, the structure tends to cancel that out. It's ridiculous (and disastrous) that we grant this idea of corporate personhood, bestowing to companies the rights of people, but not the responsibility. It is a dangerous mindset which cooly accepts that corporations are amoral vs. immoral. At the end of the day, there are people who are making these decisions and people who are benefitting from them. If the decisions are immoral, then the corporation is immoral. If the corporation is engaged in immoral behavior, then the people are immoral. >What Hollywood gets wrong is that corporations aren't intentionally evil. There's no CEO sitting in his office laughing maniacally about how his new project is going to kill widows and orphans. I don't think I've ever seen a Hollywood movie wherein the CEO of a corporation laughed maniacally about doing something evil for its own sake. Instead, corporations and their leadership are always characterized as being driven by greed. >Hollywood always wants a villain, but in this case there isn't one. Sure, there is a villain. Those people who do evil things for the sake of greed, whether in Hollywood or IRL, are still villains and are rightly portrayed as such. To imply that evil deeds are not villainous if a person is driven by greed vs. sadism/insanity plays into the culture of corporate absolution and tacitly endorses the behavior.
- dhimes 13y ago
  GP is saying, I believe, that the corporation's greed doesn't necessarily grow out of the greed of an individual, but rather out of an organization of individuals all trying to do their jobs. Each is responsible for making a small contribution to 'protecting the bottom line,' but as an organized system it makes the organization greedy. This is why we need strong regulations. I never liked them before, but now I've come to understand that they are required to allow the honest people to behave honestly. I've made a similar point here before: the same situation is occurring in the US' national intelligence groups right now. There is no 'evil' person trying to 'take away our rights.' There are just people who are responsible for protecting us who have been granted the authority to read our emails. What are they going to do? Not look? Suppose it was you? And tragedy happened and you later learned that had you looked you would have saved 2000 lives? You would have a hard time getting over it. So you look- trying to uphold the principles you believe in as you do so, but you look. However, as an organized system, with good people trying to do the right thing in each of their own small part, it's evil. That's why we need laws to prevent it. We need the laws to prevent evil results of good intentions.

cratermoon 13y ago

To corporations, if it's not about making money, then the motivation is unclear. Part of the reason why you hear the BS about climate scientists being money-driven (you know, all those fat 6- and 7-figure salaries, and the multi-billion dollar grants?) is because of this narrow perception. The structural underpinnings of businesses like this make it nearly impossible for any other motivation than "how much profit can we make" to be a factor in planning.

10feet 13y ago

You understand that these moves came about because stuff like it actually happened in real life? The film Erin Brockovich is one example.