[dawdaway]

Why are you so willing to absolve all responsibility from decision makers?

Corporations do not act but for the behest of their controllers and decision makers, who clearly should take morality into account. Larry Ellison is not a lawnmower, he is a person who is responsible for the decisions he makes and how those decisions effect those around him. Larry Ellison CAN hate you, Larry Ellison COULD give a shit about you. He chooses not to. He deserves the negative repercussions from decisions he makes. It is simply inane to demand that every aspect of morality must be legislated before corporate owners and decision makers should include it as a factor. It is only the security afforded to them by the rest of the population permitting them to continue operating that allows them to operate as they do.

Frankly, your point is far less insightful than you think.

[satvikpendem]

Explanation is not condonation, condemnation, or absolution.

Like it not, my comment is how corporations work. We've tried letting them have in-built morality, but guess what, it didn't work before, and it doesn't work now.

> who clearly should take morality into account.

"Clearly?" Why? How is it clear at all? If there are no consequences or benefits for doing so (and indeed, a highly beneficial outcome by not doing so), why should they?

> he is a person who is responsible for the decisions he makes and how those decisions effect those around him

You're viewing this from your own moral viewpoint. Imagine, what if Ellison simply doesn't give a shit at all about how his decisions affect those around him, what would you do then? At some point, if corporations or other entities aren't following the rules we set out informally as a society, then yes, you must formally and explicitly lay out the rules you want them to follow. Otherwise, stuff like in TFA will happen, and will continue to happen.

[dawdaway]

I refer you to my first question. Why are you so willing to absolve the leaders of their responsibility to behave within a societally understood moral compass?

That same moral compass which without they would not be able to function or operate?

>Like it not, my comment is how corporations work. We've tried letting them have in-built morality, but guess what, it didn't work before, and it doesn't work now.

Except it isn't, they rely on the morality of their WORKERS to achieve their objectives. You simply believe that leaders and decision makers get a free pass on ignoring morality while anyone without sufficient power must behave morally lest they be punished. How does boot polish taste?

[satvikpendem]

> Why are you so willing to absolve the leaders of their responsibility to behave within a societally understood moral compass?

And I refer you to my first sentence in my reply.

> How does boot polish taste?

I see, this is how I can tell you are not asking in good faith. Goodbye, new account made just 13 days ago.

[dawdaway]

Demonstrating that I must behave according to the moral compass you believe those with extraordinary power are exempt from also following. Fitting.

[cercatrova]

Strange response, looks like the parent said (a few times even) they're not exempt morally but seems like you're still trying to insinuate that the parent thinks they are.

[dawdaway]

Please quote me the sentences where the parent says they are not morally exempt.

>"Clearly?" Why? How is it clear at all? If there are no consequences or benefits for doing so (and indeed, a highly beneficial outcome by not doing so), why should they?

Quite obviously implies that corporations are justified in optimizing for their own benefit without factoring morality.

The anecdote provided about Larry Ellison has the same implication.

The parent saying an approximation of "I'm just explaining how the world works" is not only incorrect, patronizing and overly general but also implies that corporations are just a force of nature rather than a group of people who should be held responsible for the immorality of their decisions.