[ttt_]

>> morals should be left to individuals rather than businesses

Good enough description for the state of world.

It's easy for the individuals that make business decisions to ignore morality since you are cutting them the slack.

Ignore the fact that business "morals" have much broader impact than the morals of any indivual.

Enter BP, Exxon, Monsanto, Tabaco COs, everyone on this list very limited list: http://corporatecrimereporter.com/top100.html.

Sure, businesses don't need to account for morality.

Just to clarify, I'm probably taking what you said a bit out of the context, but I think it's worth pointing out nonetheless since you phrased it that way.

[alexkearns]

Firstly, businesses don't have morals. It is ridiculous to say they have. They may have a culture but they don't have morals.

Secondly, saying that morals should be left to individuals does not mean that individuals who run a business should not act morally and seek to have his company have a positive impact on the world.

But what an owner of a business considers morally right may well be different from what some of his employees think is morally right.

I probably disagree with your morals. And you likely will not agree with mine. But at least neither of us is forced to work for an organisation that funds a charity of the other's choice whose aims we personally find morally offensive.

[cscheid]

> Firstly, businesses don't have morals. It is ridiculous to say they have. They may have a culture but they don't have morals.

A legal person taking voluntary actions which have moral consequences must be said to have morals, in any sensible definition of the word.