1
   

Do corporations have any moral responsibility?

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2007 05:35 pm
And THAT'S the problem, Fishin. Individuals working within corporations are able to get away with actions proscribed for individuals in extra-corporation roles. In latin america, corporations are referred to as "anonymous societies" (I think we've observed this already). That term explicitly acknowledges the legal strategy of corporations to enable individuals to get around the law, to avoid their responsibilities as legal/moral agents.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2007 08:59 pm
fishin:

Originally, corporations were created for production purposes with the limited liability to encourage risk taking. It was a temporary creature but over time it gained the same rights as a person but unlike a person with responsibilities corporations have escaped this responsibility as you so clearly put it. If you have group of people with no responsibility they will engage in anti-social behavior and criminal activities. Look at the cigarette manufacturers participating in smuggling cigarettes to Native Reserves to escape taxes; oil companies engaging in disinformation regarding global warming; pharmaceutical companies in trying extend the patent of drugs beyond the 17 years and introducing inadequately tested drugs and medicine. Then there are the Enrons, Worldcoms, Tyco execs and Hollingers' Conrad Black looting investors; etc.

If corporations are given the same rights as a person then they should face the same music as a human criminal would.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2007 09:23 pm
Yes, some laws need to be changed, but it takes power to change laws.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 12:04 am
Quote:
Oh dear got your panties all

...

...

...

...

...






...

...

etc.


on the contrary, kuvasz, i don't think i've ever been more dreadfully bored than i've become with this thread- thank you.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 06:13 am
JLNobody wrote:
And THAT'S the problem, Fishin. Individuals working within corporations are able to get away with actions proscribed for individuals in extra-corporation roles. In latin america, corporations are referred to as "anonymous societies" (I think we've observed this already). That term explicitly acknowledges the legal strategy of corporations to enable individuals to get around the law, to avoid their responsibilities as legal/moral agents.


talk72000 wrote:
fishin:

Originally, corporations were created for production purposes with the limited liability to encourage risk taking. It was a temporary creature but over time it gained the same rights as a person but unlike a person with responsibilities corporations have escaped this responsibility as you so clearly put it. If you have group of people with no responsibility they will engage in anti-social behavior and criminal activities. Look at the cigarette manufacturers participating in smuggling cigarettes to Native Reserves to escape taxes; oil companies engaging in disinformation regarding global warming; pharmaceutical companies in trying extend the patent of drugs beyond the 17 years and introducing inadequately tested drugs and medicine. Then there are the Enrons, Worldcoms, Tyco execs and Hollingers' Conrad Black looting investors; etc.



I think you have both inferred something in my post that wasn't my intended point.

I fully understand what companies are and how people use them to avoid responsibilities. The point is that it is the PEOPLE that work within those corporations that are evading moral and ethical responsibilities. You can't lay the blame off on pieces of paper.


Quote:
If corporations are given the same rights as a person then they should face the same music as a human criminal would.


Do you suggest we take the articles of incorporation and lock it in a prison cell for 10-20 years? Why is that a better choice than holding the people within those coprporations (who make the decisions) responsible?
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 08:34 pm
fishin:

You are quite behind the times. Corporations can hold patents and copyright.
Why should a piece of paper be given patents or copyright?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 08:40 pm
I just read (scanned) in the NYTimes that corporations in Florida are buying rest homes for the elderly and getting away with murder because corporate law protects them from being sued.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 09:17 pm
tinygiraffe wrote:
Quote:
Oh dear got your panties all

...

...

...

...

...






...

...

etc.


on the contrary, kuvasz, i don't think i've ever been more dreadfully bored than i've become with this thread- thank you.


Bored?

Try finishing high school then.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 09:56 pm
is there a particular reason for this repeated abuse?

when you posted all the other nonsense before, it looked to me like a great deal of ad hominem that you went out of your way to disguise as attacks on my arguments. apparently you've blown your cover, and the next time i ignore you anyone will be able to point to just cause for it.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 07:00 am
talk72000 wrote:
fishin:

You are quite behind the times. Corporations can hold patents and copyright.
Why should a piece of paper be given patents or copyright?


Please do continue prattling on and explain how patents and copyrights grant a corporate entity the ability to make decisions based on morals and/or ethics without any humans being involved.

I'll wait...
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 09:54 am
Re: Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
fishin wrote:
coberst wrote:
Do US corporations have any moral responsibility to the citizens of the US?

Do US corporations have any moral responsibility to the people living on this planet?


These are both silly questions, IMO and the answers provided thusfar seem to all miss a critial point.

Whether you want to look at ethics or morals - corporations don't thave them. In fact, it isn't possible for them to have them. A corporation is a fictional "entity" created for legal purposes. It can't think, feel, reason or make decisons.

PEOPLE form and run corportions and do the thinking, feeling, reasoning and decision making.

It's true that corporations act through people, but those people are acting on behalf of the corporation. When the corporation's agents act on its behalf, therefore, it is the corporation that is acting, and it is the corporation that must accept the consequences if the agent acts in an immoral fashion. For instance, if the president of XYZ Corp. lies to the shareholders, then he has acted immorally and so, by extension, has the corporation.

Consequently, corporations have ethical obligations just as people do. If people are morally obligated not to lie or steal or kill, then corporations have the same moral obligations. The punishments that the state may impose for violations of the laws might be different (it's not possible, for instance, to put a corporation in prison), but that doesn't mean the underlying moral obligations are different.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 07:19 pm
I remember President Reagan de-certifying air controllers union at the Chicago airport. I think a corporation should also be liable for de-certification. I remember writing Nixon that criminals' assets should be seized and sold off. A criminal corporation should have its assets seized and also sold off.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 09:53:24