4 ms·

>Corporations aren't really immoral, just amoral. >Most corporations only care about their bottom line. Even if the individuals within them are moral, the stru

>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.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >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 I don't believe that's all your GP was saying. But, I disagree nonetheless. My primary point is that there are actual people who benefit from the corporation's actions. So, we need to stop this nonsensical notion that corporations are "amoral". And, we need to stop slipping in and out of corporate personhood when granting rights vs. assigning responsibility. Actually, the whole idea of corporate personhood just needs to die. >Each is responsible for making a small contribution to 'protecting the bottom line,' but as an organized system it makes the organization greedy. Sure, in any organization there are people who just toe the line and, in many cases, don't even know that their efforts may contribute to something immoral. But, that's irelevant here. The point is that there are certainly people within the company who are making these decisions and who are well-aware of their immorality and consequences. They do this for personal gain (perhaps among other reasons). So, putting this off on the corporation or organization is ill-considered. There is a tendency to let these individual decisions just sort of dissolve into the morass of the organization. It's especially bad because then we say, "Oh the corporation is amoral. It was just doing what it was supposed to do". I believe your analogy with U.S. intelligence overlays roughly but differs significantly enough that it's a different discussion. The short though, is that I don't believe that we can just conclude that it was all good intentions with coincidentally evil results.
  - dhimes 13y ago
    These options aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, there are bad operators out there. But there are also cases, I believe, like I outlined. The danger of ignoring it is that if we blame really bad outcomes (like the banking crisis) on a malicious plot by a bad player, it's too easy to dismiss as a one-off event when the problem may be systemic.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      Even in these cases there are actual people who are responsible.
protomyth 13y ago
"that we grant this idea of corporate personhood, bestowing to companies the rights of people, but not the responsibility." Technically, what the law says is that a person doesn't give up his or her rights when forming a corporation. Corporations are formed to give a liability shield of a limited extent. The extent of the shield is much, much less than a government official gets[1]. 1) ask anyone who has dealt with a criminally corrupt prosecutor

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.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>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 I don't believe that's all your GP was saying. But, I disagree nonetheless. My primary point is that there are actual people who benefit from the corporation's actions. So, we need to stop this nonsensical notion that corporations are "amoral". And, we need to stop slipping in and out of corporate personhood when granting rights vs. assigning responsibility. Actually, the whole idea of corporate personhood just needs to die. >Each is responsible for making a small contribution to 'protecting the bottom line,' but as an organized system it makes the organization greedy. Sure, in any organization there are people who just toe the line and, in many cases, don't even know that their efforts may contribute to something immoral. But, that's irelevant here. The point is that there are certainly people within the company who are making these decisions and who are well-aware of their immorality and consequences. They do this for personal gain (perhaps among other reasons). So, putting this off on the corporation or organization is ill-considered. There is a tendency to let these individual decisions just sort of dissolve into the morass of the organization. It's especially bad because then we say, "Oh the corporation is amoral. It was just doing what it was supposed to do". I believe your analogy with U.S. intelligence overlays roughly but differs significantly enough that it's a different discussion. The short though, is that I don't believe that we can just conclude that it was all good intentions with coincidentally evil results.
- dhimes 13y ago
  These options aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, there are bad operators out there. But there are also cases, I believe, like I outlined. The danger of ignoring it is that if we blame really bad outcomes (like the banking crisis) on a malicious plot by a bad player, it's too easy to dismiss as a one-off event when the problem may be systemic.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    Even in these cases there are actual people who are responsible.

protomyth 13y ago

"that we grant this idea of corporate personhood, bestowing to companies the rights of people, but not the responsibility." Technically, what the law says is that a person doesn't give up his or her rights when forming a corporation. Corporations are formed to give a liability shield of a limited extent. The extent of the shield is much, much less than a government official gets[1]. 1) ask anyone who has dealt with a criminally corrupt prosecutor