[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...