[rifung]

Since when were corporations concerned with moral values? I mean this is Amazon, the company that infamously treats its employees like poorly. FWIW I used to work there and it wasn't as bad as the articles made it out to be, but I would not consider the company to be one that cares about morals or its employees much.

[adventured]

Since when are they not? I'd argue the radical majority of all businesses in the US operate morally. Big businesses are an extremely small fraction of all business in the US and the world. Almost all businesses stay in business because they maintain a favorable reputation. Good moral values (like not stealing from or lying to customers) is a per-requisite for most businesses to keep operating.

To the point: companies like Amazon or Comcast != most businesses. They're extreme outliers to put it mildly. Further, Amazon treats its customers extraordinarily well, and operates morally by its customers, which protects their reputation where they believe it counts.

Try opening a small business and aggressively screwing over your customers. You'll quickly discover how business and morality go together. The only time that isn't true, is when a business is protected by scale (which means it'll take longer for their business to collapse), or protected by government-enforced monopoly.

[rifung]

I don't think companies care about morals. I think they really only care about making money.

In Amazon's case, I know they go out of their way to treat employees well only because they need to. This makes sense, especially for a company that sells things online when ecommerce wasn't nearly as common, and so they had to convince people that buying online was safe and as easy as buying in person.

On the other hand, if companies were actually concerned with morals in and of itself, they would do things morally right that don't benefit them.

Using Amazon again as an example, did you know AmazonSmile is a thing? I mean, it's really great. But, if a company were solely concerned with charity, AmazonSmile wouldn't be a thing; instead they would just automatically donate for everyone. It's a thing because it means that only the people who know about it and care about donating to charity will use it, and their profits will only be lower for people who care about giving to charity.

Anyway, what I am trying to say is, do companies care about morals? Unless they are run by very nice people, no. For the most part, they only care about morals to the extent that it benefits them. Companies are just run by people, and I wouldn't even argue that most people have particularly strong moral values.

[UK-AL]

If a business can get away with something and profit they will do it. They are amoral entities.

I know plenty of scummy small businesses

[adventured]

They're not amoral entities, they're run by people that make all decisions. Every person involved in a business has a moral compass of some regard, and every decision made flows from that.

If a business can get away with something and profit, they won't do it. See how I just claimed the opposite without any proof?

Saying you know plenty of scummy small businesses doesn't mean more than even a small fraction of small businesses are in fact scummy.

I know very few scummy small businesses. <- That's a meaningless statement and it's true. I'll argue that most businesses, and most people in general, are neither scummy nor looking to steal from, rip off, or otherwise defraud other people. The opposite position requires that one believe most people are bad, which is blatantly not true (if it were, civilization would be impossible).

[UK-AL]

Being scummy isn't necessary being bad. Price gouging is scummy. I wouldn't say it was evil, just self interest which in the end drives positive behaviour. Price gouging limits demand, and encourages supply.

Of course civilisation can exist with scummy businesses. I would say civilisation couldn't exist without companies seeking self interest.