[Adverblessly]

I agree that this is the behaviour displayed by (almost?) all large corporations and thus that expecting that they will behave differently is irrational, in the sense that that expectation will always turn out to be false.

That said, I don't see why that means we should expect that behaviour in the sense that we should consider this the expected, correct, behvaiour from corporations.

Perhaps if everyone believed that moral and ethical behaviour from corporations should be the expectation and not just a fairytale for <12 year olds we'd actually see that behaviour in the world. If everyone was like OP in condeming these corporations maybe their expectations would eventually become real.

[arkades]

> If everyone was like OP in condeming these corporations maybe their expectations would eventually become real.

No, they wouldn't, because the selection pressure on the organization is for the minimum amount of signaling required to optimize profits, not actual morality - not least of which because optimizing for profits optimizes for continued existence of the organization, and maximizing morality does not. Holding them to a higher moral standard just changes the measure of "what is the minimum amount of signaling required?" Selection pressure is unyielding - values that don't affect survival ultimately don't matter, because however much you like it, it will be competed out of existence.

Nor could an organization exhibit actual morality, because an organization doesn't have continuity of thought or policy - flip a few board members, change an executive team, and the people whose judgement comprises "the company's judgement" just changed entirely. It would be like discussing the morality of a robot which regularly swapped the brain it contains.

You're making the same category error as the previous poster: describing "corporation" as a noun that has a characteristic known as "morality," and then lamenting the amount of "morality" we expect from it.

Morality is for people. Profit-seeking institutions don't have morality - they have regulatory constraints on profit-seeking avenues. Tricking people into thinking corporations have the former is a jedi mind trick: keep people focused on controlling corporations with the same social censure mechanisms that work on people means you're not focusing your time and effort on the mechanisms of control that would actually work on corporations.

It's like a red dragon walking around talking about oh, gosh, how much his sunburn hurts. He's immune to fire; put away the torches and focus on something that might actually work.

[tobtoh]

> If everyone was like OP in condeming these corporations maybe their expectations would eventually become real.

>> No, they wouldn't, because the selection pressure on the organization is for the minimum amount of signaling required to optimize profits, not actual morality - not least of which because optimizing for profits optimizes for continued existence of the organization, and maximizing morality does not.

But if everyone condemned corporations (assuming that translates into consumers not purchasing their products), then that becomes the selection criteria impacting their profit.

So whilst your point that the corporations don't hold 'real' moral positions is fine, the OP would appear to be also correct in their assertion that condemnation will push a corporation to take a moral position (or pseudo-moral position if you want) and their expectations would eventually become real.

[clairity]

while you make some good points, you seem to be leaning too far into them.

we can have non-profit-seeking expectations (like morality) of corporations because it's made up of people, not robots, and the drivers of profit are (often) indirect and nonlinear. and it doesn't matter that corporations don't internalize moral behavior the same way an individual does. it gets internalized throughout the people in the corporations (stochastically, not uniformly). that's a fine outcome for the expectations we have.

social censure would be modeled as losing regard (brand value) for the corporation, and corps spend craploads of money keeping up their image because it affects profits. censure should lead to some loss of aggregate business, which does ultimately put profit pressure on the corporation.

maybe that's less effective compared to direct regulation, but social censure is immensely more accessible than regulation for most people and even most other businesses. maybe censure is not as good as regulation, but that's a claim that at least requires some rhetorical support. it's certainly better than nothing or a slim chance of proper regulation.

that said, we should do both, and more, to keep corporations--power structures--in line with what we as the people want (not the other way around). the balance is an unstable equilibrium and we need constant vigilance and pressure to maintain it favorably.

[WalterBright]

> Profit-seeking institutions don't have morality

Neither do democratic government institutions (they do whatever the political winds say), nor non-democratic institutions (which are run for the benefit of those in charge of it).

The implication that the removal of profit would result in moral, ethical, and altruistic behavior is not supported by evidence.

[Adverblessly]

> No, they wouldn't, because the selection pressure on the organization is for the minimum amount of signaling required to optimize profits, not actual morality - not least of which because optimizing for profits optimizes for continued existence of the organization, and maximizing morality does not. Holding them to a higher moral standard just changes the measure of "what is the minimum amount of signaling required?" Selection pressure is unyielding - values that don't affect survival ultimately don't matter, because however much you like it, it will be competed out of existence.

So if people were to apply selection pressure on organizations by condeming their actions and removing them from mainstream acceptance, leading to reduced profits (e.g. "Ewww, you're wearing Nike? Don't you know those are made by child laborers?!"), the optimal behaviour for them will be to exhibit a more moral behaviour.

In particular, this would be much better than the attitude I replied to of "Of course Nike are using child laborers, as a corporation that is just what they do.".

> Nor could an organization exhibit actual morality, because an organization doesn't have continuity of thought or policy - flip a few board members, change an executive team, and the people whose judgement comprises "the company's judgement" just changed entirely. It would be like discussing the morality of a robot which regularly swapped the brain it contains.

> You're making the same category error as the previous poster: describing "corporation" as a noun that has a characteristic known as "morality," and then lamenting the amount of "morality" we expect from it.

I agree that the behvaiour of an orgnization is an emergent property of the members of that organization and their culture, so it is hard to ascribe morals to the organization as a whole. However, I don't think it really matters what mechanism generates a good behaviour as much as the good behaviour itself. In my metaphorical example so far, if the Nike CEO literally hated children and wanted to work them to death but halted all child labor just to save profits, I'm still happy that the practice of child labor was stopped. Furthermore, if the Head of an organization was held liable for the actions of that organization (either legally or just socially), they would work to make sure the organization behaves in a way that makes them comfortable. If everyone in the world agreed that a certain behaviour was required of that organization, then that would include the members of that organization and itself would influence the behaviour internally.

> Morality is for people. Profit-seeking institutions don't have morality - they have regulatory constraints on profit-seeking avenues. Tricking people into thinking corporations have the former is a jedi mind trick: keep people focused on controlling corporations with the same social censure mechanisms that work on people means you're not focusing your time and effort on the mechanisms of control that would actually work on corporations.

Sure, applying regulatory constraints on organizations is also useful (though the same caveats you yourself mentioned still apply, e.g. a common failure in these regulatory constraints is that the risk-adjusted penalty the regulation sets is lower than the risk-adjusted profit, so the organization is still incentivied to break regulations). This regulation can be the result of public demand (in as much as the politicans writing it also respond to social pressure).

> It's like a red dragon walking around talking about oh, gosh, how much his sunburn hurts. He's immune to fire;

Heck, even if an organization says something without meaning it, that still has value. If 10,000 brands update their Facebook page to say "Black Lives Matter" but do nothing further about it (like donating to relevant causes, promoting black workers inside the company etc.) that still helps normalize and propagate the idea that "Black Lives Matter" and has some value of itself (though obviously much less value than actually acting about it).

[usefulcat]

I think that “a machine designed to produce profits” is a much better metaphor for a corporation than a person. Apart from profit, anything produced by a corporation is really just a side effect. This includes things like political lobbying, environmental damage, jobs, even products and services. This is so because if the company could make as much money without doing or making any of those things, then it would. And if it didn’t, then it would eventually be out competed but some other company.