5 ms·

i'm sorry but this is utterly ridiculous. IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but it is not a person (although americans might try to disagree..

by foxhill 12y ago

i'm sorry but this is utterly ridiculous. IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but it is not a person (although americans might try to disagree..). it is a paper-clip maximiser, only instead of paperclips, it's cash. it does not have morals, it does not have a conscience, irrelevant of the fact that the people that make it up do. to blame a company for doing exactly what it was made to do is madness. if IBM didn't do it, another company would have done it. IBM could have failed, in fact, as a result. or at least, they might not be in the position they are now. you may be tempted to argue that, morally, IBM should have not agreed to take part, regardless of the effect on the company. you wouldn't be entirely wrong. but a company does not have morals. not having morals is what allows them to make such vast amounts of profits. when health insurance companies fight to the death (sometimes literally) to avoid paying out claims, where is this moral outrage? or when BP do literally whatever they want to environment, where does the outrage dissipate to after the media gets bored of talking about it? we can not expect companies to be moral agents. we can not expect them to value human life over cash. to punish an entity with no conscience makes no sense. it would be akin to shouting at the wind for blowing, or kicking a hatstand for falling over. the best we can hope to do is stop companies from engaging in "immoral" behaviour (whatever that means - they change over time) whilst they are committing it. otherwise, lets start legal action with hugo boss for constructing nazi uniforms. or VW (literally, the "peoples car") for working with nazi germany.

Karunamon 12y ago
While I'm not sure I agree with your overall thesis (a company is made up of people at the end of the day), I do feel there is a point to be made here: Is the IBM of today the IBM of 20-40 years ago? A person is not controlled by different beings at different times of their life, a corporation is. The legal brief, from a quick skim, appear to reference actions taken in the 70's and 80's. Is the IBM of today the same one that existed in the 70's? The same people running it and making the same decisions? If the answer is no, I'm not sure what significance this lawsuit holds, other than a symbolic "sticking it to the corporations" one. The only people being punished in such a case are those that had nothing to do with the original wrongdoing.
- URSpider94 12y ago
  So, by your logic, if evidence surfaces after 30 years that solves an open murder case, we shouldn't prosecute the suspect, because they've changed a lot in that time?
  - sroerick 12y ago
    Or perhaps "All their cells have recycled over the last 7 years, so we can't prosecute."
  - foxhill 12y ago
    a person is a single conscious entity. there is no change in 30 years. a company will have almost entirely changed in 30 years - the son should not have to pay for the sins of the father, etc.
    - rodgerd 12y ago
      Then they shouldn't retain the patents, copyrights, cash, or any of the other assets. If corporations want the benefits of immortality, they need to accept the drawbacks.
    - URSpider94 12y ago
      Nonsense. If the company signed a 100-year lease 30 years ago, should it no longer have to honor it? If the company agreed to pay pensions to its employees 30 years ago, should it get to stop paying them? If the CEO of Chrysler retires, can I stop paying the loan on my car? The point of a corporation is that it's a durable entity (NOT a person, but a person is a good analogy much of the time). That's why corporations can own property, be insured, get loans from the bank, and otherwise enter into contracts -- because there will be an entity there tomorrow that will be accountable for those transactions -- regardless of who owns its shares or who is on the payroll.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Same person, though. Without going all philosophical about it though, here's an example: let's assume there are two companies, one a sole proprietorship, the other a corporation with 10 employees. Both companies commit the same crime, the nature of which is unimportant. It takes 30+ years for the case to enter the judicial system. In the meantime, the guy running the first company is still there, while the 10 employees of the second company are no longer the original 10. Is it as fair to prosecute the second one as the first one? I don't think so, because at that point you're assigning way too much value to the legal fiction of personhood. A company is made up of people, and I really don't see how there is any justice to be served in prosecuting people who didn't actually commit any crimes just because they work at a place with a certain name.
sroerick 12y ago
This is the most absurd, depressing thing that I've read in a while. The point of a corporation is not to have a legal person without morals. The point of a corporation is to allocate resources more efficiently than could be done by legal individuals. We can expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. We should expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. The argument that we should not punish transgressions just because some corporations are not punished for transgressions is cowardice in the highest degree. Take back your agency and your humanity and stand for something.
- foxhill 12y ago
  i don't like it. in fact i think it's the most abhorrent practise we do as humans. > The point of a corporation is to allocate resources more efficiently than could be done by legal individuals. noise. tell me - which is more "efficient" (i.e profitable), avoiding paying out insurance claims over insignificant inaccuracies, or caring about the family of 5 with a household income of $30,000, who's dad broke his arm whilst cycling to work, by a driver who was on their phone and caused them to run a red light? > We can expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. oh, so we should abolish arms manufacturers? > We should expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. you should tell this to BAE, or Lockheed Martin, or.. well, literally anyone on this list; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_contractors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_contractors > The argument that we should not punish transgressions just because some corporations are not punished for transgressions is cowardice in the highest degree. absolutely not. there is no cowardice in that statement at all. it's a recognition of what companies in this world behave like. look at the actions of pretty much every big company. ask yourself - is your world view more accurate, or is mine? again, i don't like it. it's sickening. but to hate these creations for doing exactly what they are made to do (again, make cash) is just.. senseless.
  - sroerick 12y ago
    I'm telling you the economic justification for a corporation. I don't like it either, but denying economies of scale as a reality of our world is silly. I would be fine with abolishing arms manufacturers. Have you stopped using Google yet? Because they are the Lockheed Martin of the 21st century. I agree with you that corporations are psychopathic. But to suggest that fact abdicates us from all responsibility of trying to return agency to the individual is foolish. We have the power to say no. We have the ability to reshape the world whatever way we want it. Recognizing the evil that is conducted isn't cowardly. But refusing to do anything because "That's just the way things are" is. EDIT: a don't
coffeemug 12y ago
> IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but it is not a person (although americans might try to disagree..) Neither the American legal system, nor most Americans actually treat corporations as people or believe they should be treated like people. The fact that people regurgitate this falsehood is utterly ridiculous. Our legal system uses a construct called legal fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction) as a convenient scaffold to extend existing laws to new domains (sort of like subclassing from a base class). In most of modern economies corporations have many, but not all, of the same properties as persons (they can own property, have to pay taxes, etc.) We use the legal fiction of corporate personhood as a structural aspect of the legal system to make this work. Nobody actually believes corporations are people.
ahelwer 12y ago
Your comment is, frankly, ignorant and ignores the entire field of business ethics. You ought to read the SEP article[0]. [0] - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-business http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-business
- foxhill 12y ago
  ignorant? tell me, what do you disagree with? why do you disagree with it? what evidence do you have to back up your assertions? if i am wrong correct me. but to brandish me as ignorant because you don't agree with what i say is just you, spreading dogma.
  - mikegioia 12y ago
    Here's one of your assertions I challenge: if IBM didn't do it, another company would have done it. How do you know that? How can you prove that? Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point. Here's another thing you said: IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but it is not a person [...] but a company does not have morals. If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) people have morality, on what basis are you claiming IBM doesn't (read: can't) have morals? A collection of people acting on behalf of a corporation does not absolve that corporation from any moral corruption it causes. You speak about this as if you've never read any of the comprehensive literature on business ethics. I think you're being downvoted because you're coming off arrogant in a topic (business ethics) you don't project knowing much about.
    - foxhill 12y ago
      > How do you know that? How can you prove that? come on, there's no need to be disingenuous - of course i cannot prove that. > Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point. why? i don't believe that it's unreasonable to believe that another company would pick up a contract like that. > If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) people have morality, on what basis are you claiming IBM doesn't (read: can't) have morals? A collection of people acting on behalf of a corporation does not absolve that corporation from any moral corruption it causes. it's simple, being immoral allows more profits to be made. companies do this all the time. how many companies have token offices in remote islands? it's legal. if they don't do it, they're literally leaving money on the table. why would they not do it? > You speak about this as if you've never read any of the comprehensive literature on business ethics. you're correct, i haven't. i don't claim to know anything. > I think you're being downvoted because you're coming off arrogant in a topic (business ethics) you don't project knowing much about. most text does, i don't mean to come across as arrogant. but if people don't make an effort to correct me (and linking to an incredibly long article doesn't exactly help), how else might my opinion be changed? i don't feel that people owe me an explanation, but saying "you're wrong" and downvoting isn't.. well, it's not how i'd treat someone else, so i don't appreciate it when i am treated that way.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
I hesitate to upvote you. I agree with like half of what you wrote, but the other half (especially conclusion) I find very wrong. Corporations indeed work as you described, but strong enough back pressure on social and legal level changes the profitability landscape, and thus corporations will optimize in a way that is less harmful. You're right comparing them to artificial intelligences (i.e. very strong optimization processes) - they don't share humanity's goals, nor they should be expected to. But what we can do is force their goals to align with ours as much as possible.
- foxhill 12y ago
  > But what we can do is force their goals to align with ours as much as possible. how can we force an entity the size of large corporations to do what we want? we simply can't. look at the broadband problem in america. or bankers golden parachutes. or any of the immoral actions taken by corporations. they are too large. once they get large enough, they have power over us, not the other way around.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    We can by changing legal landscape. Actions of the EFF are part of this exact process. Not saying it's easy or that we have much chances now. I'm pessimistic about that.
    - foxhill 12y ago
      we can only change the legal landscape for now. if we do punish IBM for their involvement in apartheid, what will it change for us now? we already recognise it was wrong. we can discourage others from doing similar actions now, but aside from that, i don't believe there is much else to be done.

by foxhill 12y ago

Karunamon 12y ago

While I'm not sure I agree with your overall thesis (a company is made up of people at the end of the day), I do feel there is a point to be made here: Is the IBM of today the IBM of 20-40 years ago? A person is not controlled by different beings at different times of their life, a corporation is. The legal brief, from a quick skim, appear to reference actions taken in the 70's and 80's. Is the IBM of today the same one that existed in the 70's? The same people running it and making the same decisions? If the answer is no, I'm not sure what significance this lawsuit holds, other than a symbolic "sticking it to the corporations" one. The only people being punished in such a case are those that had nothing to do with the original wrongdoing.

URSpider94 12y ago
So, by your logic, if evidence surfaces after 30 years that solves an open murder case, we shouldn't prosecute the suspect, because they've changed a lot in that time?
- sroerick 12y ago
  Or perhaps "All their cells have recycled over the last 7 years, so we can't prosecute."
- foxhill 12y ago
  a person is a single conscious entity. there is no change in 30 years. a company will have almost entirely changed in 30 years - the son should not have to pay for the sins of the father, etc.
  - rodgerd 12y ago
    Then they shouldn't retain the patents, copyrights, cash, or any of the other assets. If corporations want the benefits of immortality, they need to accept the drawbacks.
  - URSpider94 12y ago
    Nonsense. If the company signed a 100-year lease 30 years ago, should it no longer have to honor it? If the company agreed to pay pensions to its employees 30 years ago, should it get to stop paying them? If the CEO of Chrysler retires, can I stop paying the loan on my car? The point of a corporation is that it's a durable entity (NOT a person, but a person is a good analogy much of the time). That's why corporations can own property, be insured, get loans from the bank, and otherwise enter into contracts -- because there will be an entity there tomorrow that will be accountable for those transactions -- regardless of who owns its shares or who is on the payroll.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Same person, though. Without going all philosophical about it though, here's an example: let's assume there are two companies, one a sole proprietorship, the other a corporation with 10 employees. Both companies commit the same crime, the nature of which is unimportant. It takes 30+ years for the case to enter the judicial system. In the meantime, the guy running the first company is still there, while the 10 employees of the second company are no longer the original 10. Is it as fair to prosecute the second one as the first one? I don't think so, because at that point you're assigning way too much value to the legal fiction of personhood. A company is made up of people, and I really don't see how there is any justice to be served in prosecuting people who didn't actually commit any crimes just because they work at a place with a certain name.

sroerick 12y ago

This is the most absurd, depressing thing that I've read in a while. The point of a corporation is not to have a legal person without morals. The point of a corporation is to allocate resources more efficiently than could be done by legal individuals. We can expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. We should expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. The argument that we should not punish transgressions just because some corporations are not punished for transgressions is cowardice in the highest degree. Take back your agency and your humanity and stand for something.

foxhill 12y ago
i don't like it. in fact i think it's the most abhorrent practise we do as humans. > The point of a corporation is to allocate resources more efficiently than could be done by legal individuals. noise. tell me - which is more "efficient" (i.e profitable), avoiding paying out insurance claims over insignificant inaccuracies, or caring about the family of 5 with a household income of $30,000, who's dad broke his arm whilst cycling to work, by a driver who was on their phone and caused them to run a red light? > We can expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. oh, so we should abolish arms manufacturers? > We should expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. you should tell this to BAE, or Lockheed Martin, or.. well, literally anyone on this list; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_contractors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_contractors > The argument that we should not punish transgressions just because some corporations are not punished for transgressions is cowardice in the highest degree. absolutely not. there is no cowardice in that statement at all. it's a recognition of what companies in this world behave like. look at the actions of pretty much every big company. ask yourself - is your world view more accurate, or is mine? again, i don't like it. it's sickening. but to hate these creations for doing exactly what they are made to do (again, make cash) is just.. senseless.
- sroerick 12y ago
  I'm telling you the economic justification for a corporation. I don't like it either, but denying economies of scale as a reality of our world is silly. I would be fine with abolishing arms manufacturers. Have you stopped using Google yet? Because they are the Lockheed Martin of the 21st century. I agree with you that corporations are psychopathic. But to suggest that fact abdicates us from all responsibility of trying to return agency to the individual is foolish. We have the power to say no. We have the ability to reshape the world whatever way we want it. Recognizing the evil that is conducted isn't cowardly. But refusing to do anything because "That's just the way things are" is. EDIT: a don't

coffeemug 12y ago

> IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but it is not a person (although americans might try to disagree..) Neither the American legal system, nor most Americans actually treat corporations as people or believe they should be treated like people. The fact that people regurgitate this falsehood is utterly ridiculous. Our legal system uses a construct called legal fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction) as a convenient scaffold to extend existing laws to new domains (sort of like subclassing from a base class). In most of modern economies corporations have many, but not all, of the same properties as persons (they can own property, have to pay taxes, etc.) We use the legal fiction of corporate personhood as a structural aspect of the legal system to make this work. Nobody actually believes corporations are people.

ahelwer 12y ago

Your comment is, frankly, ignorant and ignores the entire field of business ethics. You ought to read the SEP article[0]. [0] - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-business http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-business

foxhill 12y ago
ignorant? tell me, what do you disagree with? why do you disagree with it? what evidence do you have to back up your assertions? if i am wrong correct me. but to brandish me as ignorant because you don't agree with what i say is just you, spreading dogma.
- mikegioia 12y ago
  Here's one of your assertions I challenge: if IBM didn't do it, another company would have done it. How do you know that? How can you prove that? Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point. Here's another thing you said: IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but it is not a person [...] but a company does not have morals. If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) people have morality, on what basis are you claiming IBM doesn't (read: can't) have morals? A collection of people acting on behalf of a corporation does not absolve that corporation from any moral corruption it causes. You speak about this as if you've never read any of the comprehensive literature on business ethics. I think you're being downvoted because you're coming off arrogant in a topic (business ethics) you don't project knowing much about.
  - foxhill 12y ago
    > How do you know that? How can you prove that? come on, there's no need to be disingenuous - of course i cannot prove that. > Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point. why? i don't believe that it's unreasonable to believe that another company would pick up a contract like that. > If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) people have morality, on what basis are you claiming IBM doesn't (read: can't) have morals? A collection of people acting on behalf of a corporation does not absolve that corporation from any moral corruption it causes. it's simple, being immoral allows more profits to be made. companies do this all the time. how many companies have token offices in remote islands? it's legal. if they don't do it, they're literally leaving money on the table. why would they not do it? > You speak about this as if you've never read any of the comprehensive literature on business ethics. you're correct, i haven't. i don't claim to know anything. > I think you're being downvoted because you're coming off arrogant in a topic (business ethics) you don't project knowing much about. most text does, i don't mean to come across as arrogant. but if people don't make an effort to correct me (and linking to an incredibly long article doesn't exactly help), how else might my opinion be changed? i don't feel that people owe me an explanation, but saying "you're wrong" and downvoting isn't.. well, it's not how i'd treat someone else, so i don't appreciate it when i am treated that way.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

I hesitate to upvote you. I agree with like half of what you wrote, but the other half (especially conclusion) I find very wrong. Corporations indeed work as you described, but strong enough back pressure on social and legal level changes the profitability landscape, and thus corporations will optimize in a way that is less harmful. You're right comparing them to artificial intelligences (i.e. very strong optimization processes) - they don't share humanity's goals, nor they should be expected to. But what we can do is force their goals to align with ours as much as possible.

foxhill 12y ago
> But what we can do is force their goals to align with ours as much as possible. how can we force an entity the size of large corporations to do what we want? we simply can't. look at the broadband problem in america. or bankers golden parachutes. or any of the immoral actions taken by corporations. they are too large. once they get large enough, they have power over us, not the other way around.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  We can by changing legal landscape. Actions of the EFF are part of this exact process. Not saying it's easy or that we have much chances now. I'm pessimistic about that.
  - foxhill 12y ago
    we can only change the legal landscape for now. if we do punish IBM for their involvement in apartheid, what will it change for us now? we already recognise it was wrong. we can discourage others from doing similar actions now, but aside from that, i don't believe there is much else to be done.