4 ms·

Thanks for answering. I think this notion is specifically relevant to BFL. The point is that in the absence of a Kohlberg "Conventional" and beyond sense of m

by bigdubs 13y ago

Thanks for answering. I think this notion is specifically relevant to BFL. The point is that in the absence of a Kohlberg "Conventional" and beyond sense of morality what we are left with is what companies (actors, individuals) can do, and what they can't do. I don't think that companies are inherently bad, it's just that companies will do what they can to maximize profit. It's as simple as that. As long as we let companies like BFL operate without punishment, they will test the limits of what they can do. Does it make it right? Of course not.

bmelton 13y ago
> I don't think that companies are inherently bad, it's just that companies will do what they can to maximize profit. SOME companies will. What percentage, I honestly don't know, but I honestly suspect that it's a much smaller percentage than people tend to believe. Aside from that, I'm not arguing with you _per se_, but you asked for an explanation, so I gave one. FWIW, I tend to downvote most pithy rhetoric that doesn't contribute to the conversation, even from pg himself.
- bigdubs 13y ago
  Again, thanks for the color. I hate to think that _anyone_ thinks this is 'pithy' (or overly concise to be clear) rhetoric though. It's a simple observation, but I feel it's one that people seem to miss quite often when dissecting events of moral ambiguity concerning companies. The point is this; we _have_ to get stronger at holding companies accountable for things we feel are suspect. That's all. Otherwise the playing field is more open to nonsense like BFL pulled.