[zaroth]

Companies (even purely algorithmic ones) are not amoral because they are directly impacted by the ethical and unethical behaviors that they choose. So they are not “unconcerned” with the morality of their actions.

Versus for example “technology” which is amoral, because it is itself a tool unaware of the purpose for which it is even being used.

Of course companies are also not immortal, companies “die” all the time.

However, companies certainly can and do act unethically, particularly when there are economic incentives to do so.

A 0.1% of EBITDA fine to Walmart would be hundreds of millions of dollars. They would certainly care about that, and they likely have teams of people who work to ensure compliance for a whole host of regulations which could result in fines at that order of magnitude.

[pmiller2]

.1% of EBITDA is a “cost of doing business” if it makes them .1% + X. Even if it doesn’t, it’s an annoyance. It doesn’t hurt any more than you or me getting a parking fine. You have to make it really, truly hurt the bottom line, because that’s the only language they speak.

[hatboat]

Even then, it's not even a cost of 0.1% EBITDA. It's a cost of 0.1% * p, where p is the probability of actually being caught. How many companies behave unethically because they know full well the will likely get away with it.

[rectang]

Companies are profit-seeking automatons. They evolve and change in response to their environment, but as entities they are not encumbered by human moral impulses or other embarrassments.

Humans operating within companies may experience moral impulses, but the company as an entity constantly urges its humans to act amorally in service of its profit-seeking.

[pmiller2]

Financial paperclip maximizers, you might say.