[alphapapa]

That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents.

We are all poorer--as a society--when some people profit at others' suffering.

You are demonstrating precisely the problem mentality that I am pointing out. Please wake up.

[AnthonyMouse]

> That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents.

What do you propose to measure it in then? There are situations where you can save X number of lives by doing Y hours of labor, and there are cases where Y is so much larger than X that you have to say no, we aren't going to do that. How do you propose to make that kind of decision without using some comparable measure of value?

Nobody can claim that the current situation is optimal. It's kind of terrible. But it isn't because we measure things using money.

[alphapapa]

Your comparison is a bit apples-and-oranges. I'm talking about a situation in which a corporation can decide to either a) do something, make more profit, but harm other people in the process; or b) not do that something, make less profit, and leave others unharmed.

In such a situation, the choice should be made without metrics and comparisons--it's a matter of right vs. wrong. That is what is missing from the decision-making process: morality.

[cma]

If a company consistently does what's right they will be out competed by a company doing what's wrong. So they have to go a whole further level in their thinking.

[cma]

It is a systemic problem with the incentives. If the CEO is moral enough to go against shareholder interest, he'll be replaced. If not, the board members will be replaced through vote and possibly sued for going counter to shareholder interests. If not, the shareholders will be replaced by shareholders a more ruthless out-competiting company.

Imploring everyone to just be more moral isn't going to fix the systemic problems.