Obviously "we" have not agreed that that is the case.
> Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can.
And that attitude is why we can't have nice things. That would be what's known as "enabling." How about, "It's unreasonable to expect a beer company to do anything other than sell as much alcohol as they can, however they can, to whomever they can." Or, "It's unreasonable to expect an oil company to do anything other than ship and sell as much oil as they can as cheaply as they can."
No. Companies, publicly traded or not, are not mindless automatons, inhumanly calculating the optimal methods to extract as much profit as possible, even though they do seem that way. Companies are comprised of people, people who are a part of the society in which their company does business. Therefore they have--should have--the responsibility to behave ethically to society, not merely their shareholders. And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live.
I don't know where this idea that "companies are required or expected to make as much profit as legally possible" came from, but it's 1) untrue, and 2) morally and ethically wrong, regardless of #1. Please stop enabling this behavior by spreading this incorrect and just plain wrong idea.
And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live.
Unless the destruction occurs outside of the realm (spatial or temporal) of the shareholders, in which case the destruction can rightfully be modeled as an externality and ignored.
I don't know where this idea that "companies are required or expected to make as much profit as legally possible" came from
Please stop enabling this behavior by spreading this incorrect and just plain wrong idea.
It's more dangerous to assume that corporations can be held to task than it is to assume that they are amoral profit-seeking entities. Only in the former case are you unpleasantly surprised if you're wrong.
> Unless the destruction occurs outside of the realm (spatial or temporal) of the shareholders, in which case the destruction can rightfully be modeled as an externality and ignored. ... It's more dangerous to assume that corporations can be held to task than it is to assume that they are amoral profit-seeking entities. Only in the former case are you unpleasantly surprised if you're wrong.
You are missing the point just as the gp did. I never said that corporations can be held to task for such things.
I'm talking about what they _should_ do, i.e. right vs. wrong, i.e. morality. And such hypothetical destruction cannot _rightfully_ be ignored, because to do so is _morally wrong._
_That_ is the point. By continuing to miss it you are further illustrating the problem. Please wake up.
What part of "morality doesn't apply to businesses" don't you understand? Do you blame a cat for catching a mouse? Do you blame a cruise missile for destroying a target? Do you blame a tornado for eviscerating a house? There are things to which the lens of morality offers very little.
What you want to claim is that corporations should view their actions morally, and what everyone is telling you is that no they shouldn't. You present (as a sibling comment) the notion that a company given a choice between the "wrong but profitable" and the "right but less profitable" should choose the "right" thing.
And we're telling you, we're all telling you, that you cannot evaluate a corporation through such a calculus!
Is the corporation going to Heaven or Hell because of how it's lived its "life"? No. Is the corporation going to have more friends because it's been "nice"? No. Is the corporation going to have better credit because, goshdarnit, it really tried to "help"? No. Are consumers going to change their buying habits because of what the company has done to its workers? Probably not--just look at Nike.
Look, I dig the whole rage against the machine thing you're going for--I've been there myself. "There's morality in the world, goddamnit, there's right and wrong! We can't let the corporations run amok and ruin our nation and communities! This is a democracy! This is America!" you cry.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only Facebook and Google and Apple and IBM, Haliburton, GE, Tata Group, Phillip Morris, Alibaba, Mitsubishi. Those are the nations of the world today--or at least as far back as Network!
Is it monstrous? Absolutely. Is it something we should find an alternative to? Certainly. But is it something to which it is useful to apply human morality to? No, and it never will be--you must engage the beast where it lives, on its terms.
> What part of "morality doesn't apply to businesses" don't you understand?
What part of "businesses are comprised of and run by human beings" don't you understand? What part of "businesses have legal, ethical, and moral responsibilities to government and society" don't you understand? These are not wishes, these are reality.
> Do you blame a cat for catching a mouse? Do you blame a cruise missile for destroying a target? Do you blame a tornado for eviscerating a house? There are things to which the lens of morality offers very little.
Cats are not human beings, they are animals. They cannot think, speak, or reason.
Cruise missles are not human beings, they are machines.
Tornadoes are hot human beings, they are weather phenomena.
What is wrong with you? Are you just trolling or do you really think like this?
> And we're telling you, we're all telling you, that you cannot evaluate a corporation through such a calculus!
Certainly I can. And I will. And this is nothing new. This is why there are laws regulating corporations in a million ways, from financial regulations to the EPA to the FCC. For example, if morality had no bearing on corporations' actions, there would be no laws against insider trading, or price/wage fixing, monopoly abuse, etc. (And you can cry "ethics, not morality!" all you want, but ethics are ultimately based on morals. The principle of right vs. wrong remains.)
Where do you come up with this idea that corporations can do whatever they want in a mindless pursuit of profit? This is not the case, it never has been, and it continues to become less the case as more and more laws and regulations are enacted.
> There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only Facebook and Google and Apple and IBM, Haliburton, GE, Tata Group, Phillip Morris, Alibaba, Mitsubishi. Those are the nations of the world today--or at least as far back as Network!
Oh please. There is some truth to that idea, but it is not done, as you seem to think.
> Is it monstrous? Absolutely. Is it something we should find an alternative to? Certainly. But is it something to which it is useful to apply human morality to? No, and it never will be--you must engage the beast where it lives, on its terms.
If everyone thought like this, the United States (and many other nations) wouldn't even exist. It's because of those who had the courage to stand up and fight for change that we are having this conversation today.
Your attitude is useless. It is part of the problem. We need principled leadership that stands up for what is right, regardless of the status quo (or the perceived one).
For example, if morality had no bearing on corporations' actions, there would be no laws against insider trading, or price/wage fixing, monopoly abuse, etc
If you look at the history of such regulations, they're typically more about protecting the assets of the rich than they are about helping anyone else. They're still somewhat rampant--just look at Google and Apple cartel behavior re: engineer hiring, or the continual monopoly abuse of Comcast and AT&T.
It's only when the behavior becomes so egregious that it causes trouble for other stakeholders will legislators finally get around to stepping in.
Where do you come up with this idea that corporations can do whatever they want in a mindless pursuit of profit? This is not the case, it never has been, and it continues to become less the case as more and more laws and regulations are enacted.
History. Dutch East India Company, United Fruit Company, Union Carbide, Ford Motor Company, British Petroleum, Blackwater, Walmart, Pinkteron, Standard Oil, Enron, and on and on and on.
The laws and regulations only protect the existing companies--Sarbox has hurt smaller companies and startups more than its protected anyone else.
~
Look, we're on the same side here. You just need to make arguments that don't blindly ignore reality and history. If you want to continue this discussion, hit me up on email with your best rhetoric. Let's quit taking up space on this thread.
No, it's like no one understands that there are things more important than money.
That is one of the chief problems with large corporations: the people making the decisions are so far removed--insulated--from the consequences that they feel no responsibility for the negative effects on other entities.
The numerous examples of corruption, evil, and greed in large corporations should come as no surprise--it's built-in to the system.
And when someone points it out, there's one after another of people like yourself who exhibit a deafening WHOOSH with yet another, "but, but, but...money!" The single-mindedness is astounding.
>And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live.
They can be. Say there are 1000 equal shareholders in a company, and they make up .01% of society. If they do $10,000,000 in damage to society they discount that by .01%, and just need to earn $1,000 as a company, one dollar each, in exchange in order for it to be "rational".
For A&E to work well needs A&E departments located within easy reach of an incident and to be staffed by people who are kept in practice and will operate immediately if required, instead of doing financial admin first.
Now this list of factors means you can always make money by shutting down A&E departments as they cannot do anything but operate at a loss.
However no matter how much money you make by doing so, you are increasing your own accidental mortality risk.
> That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents.
What do you propose to measure it in then? There are situations where you can save X number of lives by doing Y hours of labor, and there are cases where Y is so much larger than X that you have to say no, we aren't going to do that. How do you propose to make that kind of decision without using some comparable measure of value?
Nobody can claim that the current situation is optimal. It's kind of terrible. But it isn't because we measure things using money.
Your comparison is a bit apples-and-oranges. I'm talking about a situation in which a corporation can decide to either a) do something, make more profit, but harm other people in the process; or b) not do that something, make less profit, and leave others unharmed.
In such a situation, the choice should be made without metrics and comparisons--it's a matter of right vs. wrong. That is what is missing from the decision-making process: morality.
If a company consistently does what's right they will be out competed by a company doing what's wrong. So they have to go a whole further level in their thinking.
It is a systemic problem with the incentives. If the CEO is moral enough to go against shareholder interest, he'll be replaced. If not, the board members will be replaced through vote and possibly sued for going counter to shareholder interests. If not, the shareholders will be replaced by shareholders a more ruthless out-competiting company.
Imploring everyone to just be more moral isn't going to fix the systemic problems.
> Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can.
And that attitude is why we can't have nice things. That would be what's known as "enabling." How about, "It's unreasonable to expect a beer company to do anything other than sell as much alcohol as they can, however they can, to whomever they can." Or, "It's unreasonable to expect an oil company to do anything other than ship and sell as much oil as they can as cheaply as they can."
No. Companies, publicly traded or not, are not mindless automatons, inhumanly calculating the optimal methods to extract as much profit as possible, even though they do seem that way. Companies are comprised of people, people who are a part of the society in which their company does business. Therefore they have--should have--the responsibility to behave ethically to society, not merely their shareholders. And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live.
I don't know where this idea that "companies are required or expected to make as much profit as legally possible" came from, but it's 1) untrue, and 2) morally and ethically wrong, regardless of #1. Please stop enabling this behavior by spreading this incorrect and just plain wrong idea.