Evil Corporations

[Hustler]

Well?

[Ka.avik]

A small question, mister gotta make money so I can be introverted:


why do you care what we think?

[Hustler]

A small question, mister gotta make money so I can be introverted:


why do you care what we think?

Must be that I know you more than you care to admit. You voted, didn't you?

[Madrigal]

I'm taking the issue with the same degree of seriousness as the poll-maker, so I voted yes. Although it is a trick question.

[Ka.avik]

I voted, yes. in fact, I voted yes. :)

In my opinion there's no way to get rich, without stepping on the backs of a lot of poorer people. I don't feel that's a good reason for making my daily choices -- I have a higher expectation of my integrity.

Yes, money is nice, but it's only useful for buying stuff. life is bigger than that.

[Zero Angel]

Evil is a personal quality marked by a desire or indifference towards causing suffering to others where pleasure towards self or group is less than half of the sum total of unpleasentness inflicted upon others. Corporations are larger than that, they have a duty to appease their shareholders through profit otherwise they would fail to exist. Many of those who fall under the umbrella of a corporation are simply doing their job with less thought towards their actions than when their next paycheck is coming. A corporation itself is an impersonal entity which cannot be assigned a personal quality until the sum total of all involved is taken into account.

[Madrigal]

Zero Angel, I don't think a simple employee is responsible for his own exploitation, is he? When we say 'Corporation', we cannot assign the same interests and accountability to all those involved in it.

[Ka.avik]

a corporation is a buncha people who get together to make as much money as they can. Yes, they have techniques, such as producing product, but that's secondary. There is no obligation to or from anyone, for corporation to exist. Therefore the argument that they are beholden to shareholders is null & void -- or else shareholders are instead the evil ones.

Nah, they're both evil, they just play different parts in the downward spiral of misery

[Madrigal]

Evidently, the question is not even if they are evil or not, in case nobody has noticed. :P

[Zero Angel]

Rather it can be said that evil is inherent within a capitalistic system. It was the rise of corporations which brought a lot of human misery, the efficient methods in which people can be grouped, dehumanized and devalued; violations of human/chartered rights, damage to the environment, etc.

These types of behaviors, while concentrated in corporations are actually rooted in consumerism and the greed which comes with it. Sure, shareholders might be to blame for perpetuating the system, but in their eyes, they're doing little else but putting money into something with hopes of getting more out of it.

[booyalab]

Evil is a personal quality marked by a desire or indifference towards causing suffering to others where pleasure towards self or group is less than half of the sum total of unpleasentness inflicted upon others. Corporations are larger than that, they have a duty to appease their shareholders through profit otherwise they would fail to exist. Many of those who fall under the umbrella of a corporation are simply doing their job with less thought towards their actions than when their next paycheck is coming. A corporation itself is an impersonal entity which cannot be assigned a personal quality until the sum total of all involved is taken into account.

where the hell were you around the time of the "Wal-mart is evil" thread.

:rant:

[Zero Angel]

Avoided it. Keeping up with huge threads can be really time consuming, a lot of big threads aren't even worth reading till the end since people usually end up going on tangents, or trying out their comedy routines all over the thread.

I just read it. Good discussion, that.

[CoHo]

where the hell were you around the time of the "Wal-mart is evil" thread.

fyi: I totally won that

[booyalab]

fyi: I totally won that

you wish ;P

[Spartan26]

They can do evil or the results of their actions or their lack of responsibility can be evil. A defense contractor such as JPL may sell their missiles to some military. Evil is determined by who's side you're on when the bomb goes boom. Also hard to determine I would say is if a big pharma corp is evil. Come up with a miracle wonder drug, poison thousands of sickly people in the third world in the process.

Could a record label that puts out an Ashlee Simpson CD be viewed as evil? When it comes to the arts, choice in the marketplace is hampered by large corps, not enhanced. Conformity abounds and creativity lost. I always think that's pretty bad. It's not torturing of the innocents but it still sucks.

I'll agree that acting under corporations will rationalize otherwise bad behavior. I'm sure you can make a case for the vast majority of S&P 500's to be evil, even if only indirectly, but I'd vote no, they're not all evil.

[indie]

where the hell were you around the time of the "Wal-mart is evil" thread.

:rant:

WTF, booya? How many times must I stress that the thread was *NOT* "Wal-Mart is Evil," but "IS Wal-Mart Evil?" . . . cure your dyslexia, dearie. ;)

[abathur]

Capitalism isn't a problem--greed is a problem. Greed is a problem for communism, too. Greed is almost always a problem. Short of eliminating greed, capitalism is, IMO, one of the best chances at harnessing greed to do good. That said, I think many corporations do get to that hard-to-quantify "too big" where they've eliminated or absorbed too much competition for a healthy market. Greed can drive capitalism to some good places for us all, as long as we don't equate anything short of the end of all greed as a license for greed to press forward unchecked.

[Zero Angel]

WTF, booya? How many times must I stress that the thread was *NOT* "Wal-Mart is Evil," but "IS Wal-Mart Evil?" . . . cure your dyslexia, dearie. ;)
Ah, a ploy on words. You're such a diplomat. :rolleyes:

[Leftfield]

Maybe a few but the rest are not. I JUST read a few chapters in my International Financial Management book about how MNC's operate... they deserve what they got, they are not evil because they started from SCRATCH like every other business. The high power will lead people into believing that they are evil, stupid hippies... abathur has it right two posts up...

[ptGatsby]

I never understood the fixation with corporations. Corporations are ammoral creations of men, just as governments or gangs (read: mafia) are. They all act out in very similar ways. Last I heard, corporations don't 'steal' for you like governments (ignoring the whole social contract thing), for example... nor do most corporations work on exterminating entire populaces. Well, maybe some, like Debeers come close, but... The point remains that it can only be evil if you clearly define what evil is.

Course, the question is "is the majority of the SP 500 evil" - I answer yes. The majority use government to use force on things that I believe are out of the governments proper scope.

[seba]

what's S&P 500?

[Ka.avik]

... abathur has it right two posts up...
wherein abathur says that capatalism isn't the problem, greed is. Right on. The problems of communism give different presentations, but are no less damaging in their way.

the love of money is the root of all evil...so they say

[Sue Denim]

Of the many things that drive the business practices in a corporation, profit motive seems to be the one with the most clear feedback mechanism. Good/evil don't really seem relevant for what a corporation does. They may incidentally do things that are deemed to be evil or good, but I don't think that really plays into many decisions.

If we think that morality 'should' be part of the corporate behavior, then the feedback mechanisms need to change.

[Leftfield]

If we think that morality 'should' be part of the corporate behavior, then the feedback mechanisms need to change.

If a corporation is multinational, which most are, whose morality concept will be used in corporate behavior? What defines moral in the business sense? It is different for every country.

Every business will max. shareholder wealth to increase the value of the firm, it is government's resposibility to implement something if things appear to be immoral. If the goverment doesn't, the corporation is not at fault and will not be proactive because it costs money that could go to positive NPV projects to loop back to max. sharholder wealth...

I don't get why people are so anti-corporate when they do something that is not illegal, because American firms is all about capitalism thus all about money and if ANY of you hold ANY stock or fund, you are contributing to the system... hypocrits...

any haters of GOOGLE since they may be invading some privacy issues... I am sure most of you still use their search engine... but they are still EVIL!!!

[Imen de Naars]

what's S&P 500?


Standard'n'Poors

[file cabinet]

what's S&P 500?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S&P_500

[Xylix]

Is a company evil?

Well the first question we should ask is: can a company be morally judged?

This is important as trees, animals, forces of nature, and whatnot have been generally ascribed a purely neutral existence. However, this is based upon the presumption that 'free will' is a necessary component for morality. That is, for an entity to be evil, it must have had the ability to choose its action. As such, all things that cannot choose are elminiated.

(Animals are typically eliminated due to Humanity's extreme egocentrism)

So can a company choose to do good and evil?

Yes, it certainly can. Companies are controlled and directed by humans that have already been determined -- by the very presumptions in the words 'good' and 'evil', as having choice. As such, a company, by mechanism of it's humans, can be good and can be evil.

Further, this applies to all 'entities' created by the grouping of humans, that are also directed by humans: Governments, Churches, Clans, Squads, Armies, etc...



Now, let us move on. Are companies evil?

Well being 'good' or 'evil' is generally accepted as being drawn from one or more of these three catagories: Intent, Action, and Consequence.


Now intent is quite simple to look at. Companies, by fundmental nature, are created for the profit of those that created them. As such, a company is predisposed to maximize the controler's profits as fast as possible, and at the complete indifference of any other group. The most effective and quickest means to do this is to exploit all individuals outside the group profiting.

Hence, by fundemental nature, companies are predisposed to evil intent. That is the profit of self at the expense of others.


Intent of course follows into action. Because laws, bindings, or morals by nature limit the ability to act upon intent, they are likely to be ignored. However, laws and bindings can have consequences to their violation which make it unprofitable to carry out actions that are deemed immoral.

Thus, a company is predisposed to follow laws, in so much as they are sufficiently enforced. Hence, in terms of action they are only 'moral' in so much that regulations, laws and bindings keep them so.

In addition, a company is by nature predisposed to use its power to remove or ignore these bindings whenever possible, as they interfer with intent.



As for consequence, by nature a company only gives care to its controllers. As such, the consequnces of a companies actions are such that they benefit a very small minority at the expense of a very large majority. Now government and law, again, often use their power, usually in the form of tax, to harness the generation power of companies to benefit the whole.



So what does this all mean?

Companies are predisposed to be evil. However, given proper regulation and surrounding laws companies can be good -- despite their intent. Further, the top companies are likely to closely match the prediposition that the surrounding environment creates. This is because this the the most efficient point of existence.


Now historically, companies have done great evil. A simple look at the absolute horrors created during the early industrial revolution makes that quite clear. Even even today companies use every mechanism from outright illegal action -- Enron, to legal lobbying -- RIAA, in order to maximumly exploit individuals for their sole profit.

However, in equal consideration the modern level of living is a direct result -- thus a consequence -- of their actions, though admittedly largely influenced by regulation.


As such, the consideration of evil of a corporation is dependent largely on the personal view of which of: Intent, Action, or Consequence is more important. A utillitarian -- who views consequence as ultimate -- would say that currently most companies are good. However, one that views intent as ultimate would have the opposite conclusion.



Personally, I tend to think of companies as a necessary evil.



Whatever the case you should certainly view their claims and presentations with great suspicion -- as these are almost a direct a result of generally evil intent.



A more interesting question would be: What kind of regulations most effectively expedite both corporate success and enhance societal benefit?

[Xylix]

Maybe a few but the rest are not. I JUST read a few chapters in my International Financial Management book about how MNC's operate... they deserve what they got, they are not evil because they started from SCRATCH like every other business. The high power will lead people into believing that they are evil, stupid hippies... abathur has it right two posts up...

?
??
???
????

How exactly does this apply to being evil? Hitler started from scratch. So did lots of evil people.



Good/evil don't really seem relevant for what a corporation does. They may incidentally do things that are deemed to be evil or good, but I don't think that really plays into many decisions.


For something to be good or evil, good or evil do not have to play into anyone's considerations. Generally a man that murders his wife isn't thinking about 'Good' or 'Evil' either. However, the action is still generally accepted as being evil.

Likewise, a company can decide to ignore the health risks of their medicine, and hide them from the FDA -- purely on the consideration of profit. However, this action is still generally accepted as being 'evil'.




If a corporation is multinational, which most are, whose morality concept will be used in corporate behavior? What defines moral in the business sense? It is different for every country.

The normal definition of course. That would be everyone's 'personal' definition.

I mean, I never apply anyone else's definition of good or evil but my own. (Well, I suppose I do so in thought experiments.) So why would you use a different one in this senario?

However, why would anyone need to judge the morality of a company on more than a personal scale anyway? If it is for regulation purposes, then the judgement still only applies to how you vote on the bill. This seems to be a question on the systematic method of how laws and regulation get passed than on morality...




Every business will max. shareholder wealth to increase the value of the firm, it is government's resposibility to implement something if things appear to be immoral. If the goverment doesn't, the corporation is not at fault and will not be proactive because it costs money that could go to positive NPV projects to loop back to max. sharholder wealth...


Even in the lack of government regulation a company can choose certain actions. Some companies threw support in helping save the Jews in WWII, others threw support into killing them. Companies are capable of choice, and thus of evil.

Certainly, a government should pass laws to keep companies good, but saying the companies bare no responsiblity is like saying that murders aren't evil, as it's the governments job to keep them from murdering. The presumption is rediculous.




I don't get why people are so anti-corporate when they do something that is not illegal, because American firms is all about capitalism thus all about money and if ANY of you hold ANY stock or fund, you are contributing to the system... hypocrits...

You do know that a declaration of hypocrisy is a argumentative fallacy... don't you?

So is an Ad Hominem.



any haters of GOOGLE since they may be invading some privacy issues... I am sure most of you still use their search engine... but they are still EVIL!!!

I'd use Google's search engine without hesitance even if I thought it was evil. I mean, I use window at college even though I think Microsoft is evil.

However, like I use Linux at home, if there was an alternative I'd use that. However, I currently consider Google to be one of those companies that are a rare exception. I am not sure how much longer that will last.

[Leftfield]

It figures, I type up a quick reply to what is currently on my mind and someone discets the shit out of it word for word... such an INTP

Hitler did not apply for a corporate charter and was never a corporation, different issues...

Pharmaceutical companies have a huge risk and Merck fucked up and should pay, what they did should force them to shut down but given the size and presence of the firm, would fuck up the economy... too much in assets... however, you certain shareholders (bulk mutual fund companies) can always switch up management within the firm, they chose not to, no one did anything, that is how the system works.

I will make a comparitive arguement, a corporation has 100,000 worldwide employees and pollutes and causes harm to the air. There was a thread on this site about people littering or not recycling because they could care less, where is the difference when this is scaled appropriately???

Quote by you:

Certainly, a government should pass laws to keep companies good, but saying the companies bare no responsiblity is like saying that murders aren't evil, as it's the governments job to keep them from murdering. The presumption is rediculous.

Ummm, go to Europe where the VAT is 16% and taxes on income are steep. I blame government for not responding to the liberals on this one, but that is what you get when you have Republicans in the White House, which is, oh yeah, GOVERNMENT...

Making assessments of corporations now vs. 1945 is a bit outdated, we have already gone through a technological and social progressive revolutions and many world cultures are different now than they were then. However, I will say that corporations do finance presidential canidates pre-election and that is where the overall evil lies...

Corporation scrathes Government's back and vice versa... there is nothing we can do unless you start the next revolution that will change our culture's thinking...

[Dman]

You all put too much thought into this. It’s simple. They are only “evil” if they are not making ME richer, for that is their purpose

[sbw]

A small question, mister gotta make money so I can be introverted:


why do you care what we think?

damn, I wanted to be mister gotta make money so I can be introverted

Scott

[Alchemist]

Google ain't evil! Oh wait, they aren't in the S&P 500. Corps. exist to make money so... :)

[kuranes]

They can cause harm - and can do it without hesitation - but to use the word "evil" is simplistic without a definition of such. There was a movie done recently, talking about how if you applied standard psychological health profiles to most corporations they would come up as amoral psychos, but this is not surprising. Most are not altruistic in terms of trying to make the world a better place. Some companies are trying to change their image in this regard, and there are some funds which only invest in certain kinds of companies, avoiding cigarette mfg.'s for example.

[ptGatsby]

There was a movie done recently, talking about how if you applied standard psychological health profiles to most corporations they would come up as amoral psychos,


"The Corporation" I believe is what you refer to.

I couldn't help by think of "The Wave" and governments when I watched it. If corporations devolve into amoral psychopaths, then governments appear to devolve into immoral sociopaths (ammoral in the sense that they seek a path of maximum profit, by immoral I mean to seek specific anti-social behaviour to further their cause. A cigarette company will sell you something toxic, a government will just kill you.)

[cjs55]

I'm on a nietzchean bent currently, so I'd wonder if coprorations promote active strong agents or reactive weak ones, and then judge their value in accordance to their effect on humanity.

[notjeffgoldblum]

Me: define evil
(imaginary Hustler): answer the question
Me: define evil
(imaginary Hustler): just answer the question
Me: define evil

[Chunes]

Corporations help (key word) spread evil, certainly.

[Anonymous]

Not "evil", no, but possibly harmful in some cases.

[MadamI'madaM]

I fucking hate how the debate is always framed specifically around "corporations" and "good vs. evil".

Saying that "corporations" are evil lumps in the helpless grunts while negating the responsibility of the shareholders and consumers. Although I don't dig the fact that an inhuman entity gets all the perks while protecting the actual D-bags from just about all responsibility and liability.

Simply using the vapid, played out dichotomy of "good vs. evil" introduces a fuckload of completely unnecessary psuedointellectual philosophical bullshit. We should talk in real terms of hard resources being hoarded by a few who could never use them all, indirectly allowing lots people to suffer and die. Somewhere down the road after a few hundred million liquid (personal assets like mansions, boats, cars, or gold/jewelry I sympathize with to a degree), it stops being about survival and becomes either about animalistic hoarding or sociopathic control. Saying that it's impersonal is insulting either your or my intelligence. Grow up. You've obviously passed kindergarten if you're worth nine digits.

And corporations are a just a natural consequence of capitalism and money, which necessitate and perpetuate greed, much less the other way around than most people tell themselves.