[foxhill]

ignorant?

tell me, what do you disagree with? why do you disagree with it? what evidence do you have to back up your assertions?

if i am wrong correct me. but to brandish me as ignorant because you don't agree with what i say is just you, spreading dogma.

[mikegioia]

Here's one of your assertions I challenge:

    if IBM didn't do it, another company would have done it.

How do you know that? How can you prove that? Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point.

Here's another thing you said:

    IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but
    it is not a person [...] but a company does not have 
    morals.

If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) people have morality, on what basis are you claiming IBM doesn't (read: can't) have morals? A collection of people acting on behalf of a corporation does not absolve that corporation from any moral corruption it causes.

You speak about this as if you've never read any of the comprehensive literature on business ethics. I think you're being downvoted because you're coming off arrogant in a topic (business ethics) you don't project knowing much about.

[foxhill]

> How do you know that? How can you prove that?

come on, there's no need to be disingenuous - of course i cannot prove that.

> Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point.

why? i don't believe that it's unreasonable to believe that another company would pick up a contract like that.

> If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) people have morality, on what basis are you claiming IBM doesn't (read: can't) have morals? A collection of people acting on behalf of a corporation does not absolve that corporation from any moral corruption it causes.

it's simple, being immoral allows more profits to be made. companies do this all the time. how many companies have token offices in remote islands? it's legal. if they don't do it, they're literally leaving money on the table. why would they not do it?

> You speak about this as if you've never read any of the comprehensive literature on business ethics.

you're correct, i haven't. i don't claim to know anything.

> I think you're being downvoted because you're coming off arrogant in a topic (business ethics) you don't project knowing much about.

most text does, i don't mean to come across as arrogant. but if people don't make an effort to correct me (and linking to an incredibly long article doesn't exactly help), how else might my opinion be changed? i don't feel that people owe me an explanation, but saying "you're wrong" and downvoting isn't.. well, it's not how i'd treat someone else, so i don't appreciate it when i am treated that way.

[ahelwer]

Your statements reflect fundamental flaws in your understanding of the subject matter. Expecting people to donate time to teach you the subject is pure entitlement. Read the SEP article. It's very easy to understand. Section 2.1 - the very first body section - is titled "Is the corporation a moral agent?" and should at least give you pause in publicly asserting they are not.

[foxhill]

> Your statements reflect fundamental flaws in your understanding of the subject matter.

my opinions are based on my observations. i observe companies being immoral all the time. there are a few notable exceptions - i think google are generally good, tesla, valve, recently (and only recently) microsoft, maybe some others.

bear in mind, throughout my replies, i've given various (uncited, but i believe easily verifiable) examples of why i believe what i believe.

> Expecting people to donate time to teach you the subject is pure entitlement.

no, i expect people who engage in HN comments to engage in discussion. i've expressed my opinion. if you disagree with it, i expect that you explain why, or to say nothing. dismissing me as ignorant because i don't have a background in business ethics is not an explanation.

> Read the SEP article. It's very easy to understand. Section 2.1 - the very first body section

your arrogance is becoming outrageous.

i did read section 2.1, here are some things it said-

> If the corporation is a legal person, is it also a moral person? Anglo-American law takes no explicit position on this...

ok, so no legal position on the "morality" of a company.

> ... Thus, for French, corporations are both legal and moral persons, and hence moral agents in their own right.

ok, French seems to think they are. on the other hand, Velasquez has a different opinion -

> Attributing moral agency to corporations opens the door to the intuitively implausible conclusion that a corporation can be morally responsible for something no natural person connected with it is responsible for.

so, really, you're asserting that corporations are moral, citing this article as proof, when in fact, (at least in the section you have directed me to) the law makes no statement, and there appears to be no general consensus on the matter.

> and should at least give you pause in publicly asserting they are not.

indeed.

[ahelwer]

Consider the question of why someone would want to teach you this subject, when you are combative at every turn. I did not assert corporations are moral agents. This is not a debate beyond an invitation to adopt intellectual humility on this subject, about which you do not claim to know anything.

[foxhill]

> Consider the question of why someone would want to teach you this subject, when you are combative at every turn.

i do not post opinions as invitations or expectations to lecture. only to discuss.

if i disagree with you, it is a mistake to interpret that as combative.

> I did not assert corporations are moral agents.

my OP was saying that companies have no morals. your initial response was to tell me i'm ignorant of the field of business ethics (a statement not entirely without merit, i concede). i did not interpret that as an agreement, just a rude disagreement. and if you disagree with the statement "corporations are not moral agents" this implies (to me) that you are asserting the opposite, i.e, they are.

> This is not a debate beyond an invitation to adopt intellectual humility on this subject, about which you do not claim to know anything.

at the risk of sounding rude (and i have no intention of sounding that way), you're suggesting i adopt intellectual humility - i have already claimed to know little, all i have asked is that you justify why you disagree with what i am saying. if you are suggesting that you are a field expert, and that i should agree with you for that reason alone, well, that's essentially a "proof" by authority[1].

[1] - http://staffhome.ecm.uwa.edu.au/~00043886/humour/invalid.pro...

[CamperBob2]

How do you know that? How can you prove that? Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point.

Is there some reason you believe corporations, composed of human beings, are exempt from the human vulnerabilities documented by people like Zimbardo and Milgram?

That's the whole problem: if someone refuses to go along with your plan, all you have to do is ask somebody else. You will be (un)pleasantly surprised at just how few people, or by extension corporations, you have to approach with your proposal. There's nothing to "prove."