Are corporations evil, and if so why?

[olanv]

@erislover

I wasn’t aware I attributed the mention of charity to you at all; I only used it as an indication of companies failing to maximize return.

A comment on this. Maximizing return (in this sense at least), is also about getting a return! You start making too much and people revolt. It’s one of those trivial mental exersizes to state that if you had all the wealth in the world, how much would it cost to be the wealthiest person in the world?

“charity” as corperations use it are part of the manufacturing cost of social stratification… playing with this tension line. Another aspect of charity is the tax deduction part of it “d’oh”! To compound matters, a company donates “x” number of dollars (tax deductable) to research for cancer remedies (NOT CURES!! that’d be bad business!!) so that they can sell them for more profit. It’s FREE research and development. Now some people, like rich celebrities, who have zero clue, being whores by trade, donate to charity as image management, so as to make themselves more viable economically… they still make mass profit (moreso then if they didn’t do “charity”), and again, they dump money into the free R&D spectacle of larger corperations. To get into cases like feeding the homeless etc… makes me too suicidal, because it’s simply soo depressing. To talk about charity as not a profit maximizer is pure ignorance of capitalism.

[erislover]

I feel it only fair to completely summarize my views, lest anyone try and simply divine them from my posts, as it has come to my attention is not good form.

First, corporations, as such, are not evil. I say this because I do not believe there is an unambiguous, objective answer to “What is evil?” so that we may compare it to the answer to “What is a corporation?” So, let that be clear.

Second, my point is to argue against any claim to moral neutrality. The key component I would use in such an argument would be that the rules which govern interaction will only rarely create truly neutral positions; in the overwhelming number of cases, some actions are more desirable (with respect to the rules) than others. I believe corporations, as described here and commonly found by inspection, are not one of these rare decision-neutral entities. With respect to my first point, it remains open, then, whether corporations have a tendency towards moral or immoral behavior. Which leads us to…

Third, I would argue that, subjectively, the tendencies of a corporation are not moral tendencies. As evidence I would simply suggest that to a corporation, employees (humans) are a means to an end, and in general I consider that it is immoral to treat humans as a means to an end. I feel that any other interpretation of a corporation’s treatment of an employee would require that a corporation, as such, has empathy–something I think that is obviously untrue on its face. To counter the notion that a corporation does not treat humans as a means to an end, I will mention the notion that, as such, corporations have no obligations to men, meaning generally that they have no reason to be moral. Given this, and the second point, I feel I’ve wrapped it up, except for…

Finally, I would summarily reject the idea that the proper placement of judgment is on the officers of a corporation as a rule (though I would never argue against their own culpability in any particular affair, moral or otherwise). This would be an argument by analogy. If we consider a hypothetical world where brains may be removed from a body, yet still control this body (perhaps by radio signals, or some mystical device (it isn’t really important how)), we would not significantly alter our punishment of individuals by merely storing their brains in a detention center and letting the bodies roam free. I feel that, for the purposes of this thread, the analogy is sufficiently strong to motivate us to consider that a corporation-as-a-vessel must be held accountable with whatever makes decisions “for” it. Unfortunately, the analogy does not hold completely since it is feasible to punish only the corporation and not its controllers, while I cannot conceive of a hypothetical situation whereby we punish the body without punishing the brain. But since no one has yet mentioned that only the corporation should be responsible for its own actions, I feel it is safe to let this objection slide without further comment.

[erislover]

@olanv

“charity” as corperations use it are part of the manufacturing cost of social stratification… playing with this tension line.

Well, perhaps that is one motivation. Another might simply be good will, might it not? But I think it is fair to say that, in general, no corporation is motivated by good will unless it has some estimated return (even if such a return is not a maximum).

To compound matters, a company donates “x” number of dollars (tax deductable) to research for cancer remedies (NOT CURES!! that’d be bad business!!) so that they can sell them for more profit. It’s FREE research and development.

Well, as I understand it, research is not free. Whether there is a pot of gold at the end of the research rainbow is one thing, but you have to pay for research today.

To get into cases like feeding the homeless etc… makes me too suicidal, because it’s simply soo depressing. To talk about charity as not a profit maximizer is pure ignorance of capitalism.

If we could suggest in general that charity itself generates profit, it would be strange to have ever found it necessary to create non-profit organizations for the purpose of charity. Don’t you find it so?

[pervert]

@erislover

First, corporations, as such, are not evil. I say this because I do not believe there is an unambiguous, objective answer to “What is evil?” so that we may compare it to the answer to “What is a corporation?” So, let that be clear.

Well, this is ok. However, I think you have to answer the first question in the remainder of you position.

Second, my point is to argue against any claim to moral neutrality. The key component I would use in such an argument would be that the rules which govern interaction will only rarely create truly neutral positions;

Ok, but this is only true if you include the things which the rules explicitly exclude. That is, interactions are defined as excluded if they involve murder, crime, or fraud, for instance. Given this, I can agree that the rules do not often allow for neutral interactions.

However,

in the overwhelming number of cases, some actions are more desirable (with respect to the rules) than others. I believe corporations, as described here and commonly found by inspection, are not one of these rare decision-neutral entities. With respect to my first point, it remains open, then, whether corporations have a tendency towards moral or immoral behavior. Which leads us to…

Given that the rules define allowable actions based on moral actions, I think we can say that corporations tend toward moral actions. At least without proof to the contrary.

Third, I would argue that, subjectively, the tendencies of a corporation are not moral tendencies. As evidence I would simply suggest that to a corporation, employees (humans) are a means to an end, and in general I consider that it is immoral to treat humans as a means to an end.

But this is ridiculous on its face. Regarding a human as a means to an end requires discounting to absurd level the desires of that human. The process of hiring and paying an employee provide ample evidence that this is not the case. At least in the vast majority of cases in America.

we would not significantly alter our punishment of individuals by merely storing their brains in a detention center and letting the bodies roam free.

Well, this would only be true if the brain were no longer connected to the body. If the brains could still command and recive input from the body, your analogy would be a profound change in the way we punish individuals.

Perhaps I should have followed the thread more closely.

[Bryan_Ekers]

On examination, Gadarene and erislover are using a somewhat different and broader definition of “corporation” than I am, and I made the distinction earlier on, so I’m not just making this up on the spot.[ul][li]The for-profit corporation as a purely legal construct, on paper, within a legal framework defining how investments are accepted and used, seeks by definition to maximize return for those investors. As a construct, the corporation is morally neutral and need have no ethical limits “built into” its design. This is the definition I use if ever anyone suggests the corporation is an evil concept per se. My earlier “by the way” comment was directed at the OP of this thread.[/li][li]In order for the for-profit corporation to accomplish that (or any) goal, it needs to spend some of the investor’s money to hire human officers, managers and workers. These humans are (or should be) bound by standard ethical practices not to do bad things. If getting a maximal return requires a violation of ethics, then by definition an ethically-run corporation’s maximum return is lower than that of a corporation which is not bound by ethical concerns. Similarly, humans don’t have infinite time to make plans nor do they possess perfect knowledge, so even within a purely ethical framework, opportunities will always be missed. “Maximize” doesn’t mean (and never meant) “get the absolute maximum possible result” but rather “get the maximum possible result given the constraints imposed by time, information, and (possibly) ethical limits.”[/ul][/li]
When the ethical contraints are ignored, then the people who work for a corporation can do evil things. The use of the word “corporation” to include all the actions taken by all the people who work for it is broader than the purely legal one I have used. It would be like a thread suggesting religion was evil, and while it’s easy to come up with a mile-long list of evil acts done by people in the name of religion, the concept itself is neutral.

[erislover]

@pervert

But this is ridiculous on its face. Regarding a human as a means to an end requires discounting to absurd level the desires of that human. The process of hiring and paying an employee provide ample evidence that this is not the case. At least in the vast majority of cases in America.

How so? Hiring and playing an employee to do work could be a moral action, allowing the person to fulfill themselves and be an end in themselves, or it could be an immoral action, by simply using them to get what is needed and discarding them otherwise. I think it is quite clear, historically and by inspection, which model corporations use in general. Certainly, in this thread, the main contention seems to be that corporations have no obligation to their employees. This being the case, how could they be treating humans as anything but a means to an end?

[David_Simmons]

@Bryan Ekers

… the concept itself is neutral.

Could be. However I do think that any concept that lends itself to widespread and continued abuse needs reexamination now and then. And maybe even a little criticism from time to time.

[erislover]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
[ul][li]The for-profit corporation as a purely legal construct, on paper, within a legal framework defining how investments are accepted and used, seeks by definition to maximize return for those investors. As a construct, the corporation is morally neutral and need have no ethical limits “built into” its design.[/ul][/li][/quote]
I guess I just don’t see that maximizing return is morally neutral. I still don’t see that maximizing return is built into the strict legal definition you’re trying to push around here as representative of “corporations”.

“Maximize” doesn’t mean (and never meant) “get the absolute maximum possible result” but rather “get the maximum possible result given the constraints imposed by time, information, and (possibly) ethical limits.”

Oh, well, if you include “being moral” in the definition of a corporation then the answer to the OP is quite trivial. I would have suggested “legal” limits rather than ethical ones, but I guess YMMV.

It would be like a thread suggesting religion was evil, and while it’s easy to come up with a mile-long list of evil acts done by people in the name of religion, the concept itself is neutral.

I do not understand your use of “neutral”, especially wrt religion, a thing that defines (a) morality in the first place. Second, I think you’d find more than a few people would would consider religion having a tendency for evil. At least, memory serves to indicate that I’ve seen such threads around.

[pervert]

@erislover

[…]playing an employee[…]

I know, just a typo. I really don’t believe in Freud. But also a very amusing pun.

This being the case, how could they be treating humans as anything but a means to an end?

Because they are compensating them at a rate which the humans in question agree to.

Certainly you could suggest that some employees are tricked into accepting a rate which is not fair. There are many ways in which employers treat employees with less than total altruistic “ellow feeling”. However, your post suggested that corporations as a rule treated people as a means to an end. I took this to mean more than the fact that corporations are getting valuable labor and making a profit on the result. The way you put it, all labor is exploitation.

[pervert]

@David Simmons

Could be. However I do think that any concept that lends itself to widespread and continued abuse needs reexamination now and then. And maybe even a little criticism from time to time.

You mean like the welfare state?

[msmith537]

@Aeschines

Actually, I wasn’t clear: I meant that, as employees, we are thoroughly controlled by them.

You are controlled to the extent that you have hired to do a job and follow the guidelines of the company. Unlike a government, you may choose to terminate your employment at any time.

@Aeschines

I don’t think the system “works,” at least not in the US. Yes, it largely works to prevent people from egregiously breaking the law, but it doesn’t prevent execs from ripping off the shareholders, which is what they do on a regular basis.

By your narrow and false definition maybe. Overcompensation is not “ripping off” shareholders. You may not like the fact that Jack Welch gets paid as much as he does, but the fact remains that he made GE incredibly successful as a company and created a great deal of wealth for a lot of people.

@erislover

A corporation is under no ethical, moral or legal obligation to make the worker’s lives emotionally fullfilling; they’re only obliged not to make the working conditions unecessarily harsh.

I thought the employees could just leave if presented with such conditions?

I think it goes without saying that in the employer/employee relationship, the employer has a great deal more of power than any individual employee. I don’t think there’s inherently wrong with forcing people to work hard. I do think one of the problems with a system with unconstrained competion is that the most psychotic workaholic sets the bar for everyone else. The don’t think it’s good for society in general for the entire workforce to work at a pace set by someone who has sacrificed family, personal relationships and hobbies for a job. I’m sure the boss would love it though.

[erislover]

@msmith537

I do think one of the problems with a system with unconstrained competion is that the most psychotic workaholic sets the bar for everyone else. The don’t think it’s good for society in general for the entire workforce to work at a pace set by someone who has sacrificed family, personal relationships and hobbies for a job. I’m sure the boss would love it though.

That’s a really interesting point.

[erislover]

@pervert

Because they are compensating them at a rate which the humans in question agree to.

What is your evidence that we generally agree to our wages? That we aren’t revolting? That we could go to some other mythical place of employment? That no such places exist…?

However, your post suggested that corporations as a rule treated people as a means to an end. I took this to mean more than the fact that corporations are getting valuable labor and making a profit on the result. The way you put it, all labor is exploitation.

Oh, there’s nothing wrong with profit. In fact I expect us all to profit to some extent. But consider the dynamic from the point of view of the corporation: it expects to get as much from its employees as it can with as little pay as possible (if it is to work towards maximizing profit). In what sense is this behavior respecting an individual as an end it itself? How would you treat someone, say, a friend, family member, etc?

The employee, of course, wants as much pay as possible for as little work as the employee can manage–but I don’t consider that wrong, since there’s nothing wrong with treating the corporation as a means to an end (to me).

[Bryan_Ekers]

@David Simmons

Could be. However I do think that any concept that lends itself to widespread and continued abuse needs reexamination now and then. And maybe even a little criticism from time to time.

Fair enough, though you could also re-examine and criticize government, law enforcement, and any form of religion on the same basis of widespread and continued abuse. I just feel it’s better to punish the people who abuse the concept, not abolish the concept or radically alter it to the point of uselessness. For example, had I a say (beyond my own vote and right to express my opinion to my Member of Parliament) in how the corporation concept was applied, I’d move for all corporate tax returns to be made public upon filing. This wouldn’t affect how an honest corporation conducted its business, and it may cut down on a number of accounting-trick shenanigans.

[erislover]

@Bryan Ekers

Fair enough, though you could also re-examine and criticize government, law enforcement, and any form of religion on the same basis of widespread and continued abuse.

As a personal matter, absolutely. Any formal authority needs to be constantly questioned, investigated, reviewed, etc.

[pervert]

@erislover

What is your evidence that we generally agree to our wages? That we aren’t revolting? That we could go to some other mythical place of employment? That no such places exist…?

Mythical? Are you saying that the job you have is the only possible one in the universe? No, you are not. You are saying that all jobs are the only possible jobs within the univers for those employees. Surely you did not mean to imply this.

Oh, there’s nothing wrong with profit. In fact I expect us all to profit to some extent. But consider the dynamic from the point of view of the corporation: it expects to get as much from its employees as it can with as little pay as possible (if it is to work towards maximizing profit). In what sense is this behavior respecting an individual as an end it itself? How would you treat someone, say, a friend, family member, etc?

I would treat them as capable productive individuals. I would treat them as ends in themselves and expect the same from them. I would contract with anyone working from me from this basis. It is, IMHO, the only way for people to treat each other morally.

Let me reverse the question on you. If I give an employee one penny more than the market will bear for his services, how is that treating him as an end in himself? Isn’t that treating him as a charity case which cannot survive without others? That is without using others? If a man survives by treating others as a means to his own ends, how can he ask to be respected as his own means and end?

The employee, of course, wants as much pay as possible for as little work as the employee can manage–but I don’t consider that wrong, since there’s nothing wrong with treating the corporation as a means to an end (to me).

Unless you are not an owner of the corporation. I do not treat your home as a means to my ends. I expect you to respect me and mine in the same way.

[pervert]

@msmith537

I think it goes without saying that in the employer/employee relationship, the employer has a great deal more of power than any individual employee. I don’t think there’s inherently wrong with forcing people to work hard. I do think one of the problems with a system with unconstrained competion is that the most psychotic workaholic sets the bar for everyone else. The don’t think it’s good for society in general for the entire workforce to work at a pace set by someone who has sacrificed family, personal relationships and hobbies for a job. I’m sure the boss would love it though.

As opposed to what? As opposed to a system where people are rewarded on some other basis than how hard they work? Perhaps the amount of political pull they have?

No one is forced to “keep up with the joneses”. If your neighbor works twice as hard as you and so has more disposable money, what exactly is your complaint?

[erislover]

@pervert

Mythical? Are you saying that the job you have is the only possible one in the universe? No, you are not. You are saying that all jobs are the only possible jobs within the univers for those employees. Surely you did not mean to imply this.

No, no, that mythical place of employment where employees get treated right, the one they can just go to whenever they are disatisfied. You know the one. Isn’t it right down the street from… now wait, was it the KFC? And then a left on Main… or was it a right?

Let me reverse the question on you. If I give an employee one penny more than the market will bear for his services, how is that treating him as an end in himself?

What the market will bear? You pay him what you think is fair. He’s a person, not a statistic. If you can’t give a man working full-time a wage he can live on, even though the market bears it, how are you treating him? Like an end it himself, or like a person who needs to do whatever he can to get by today, even if it means sacrificing future opportunity, which just happens to be convenient to your bottom line? I look around at housing prices in my area, where one bedrooms generally run between 800-1100 a month, and I then look at the person working at McDonalds (or Walgreens or the local grinder shop) and I have to wonder: do their bosses think of them as real people with realistic needs? Because I don’t know how these people live. As far as I can tell, they do so on the fringe of the law, cramming as many people as they can into a place, hoping they won’t get evicted for it. I’d say there’s 12-15 people living in the three or four bedroom place across the street from me. It is very hard for me to look at that situation and think, “They really like this, there’s nothing they’d prefer more, and no one is really barring them from opportunity but themselves.” Maybe I’m too idealistic. Maybe I feel sad for them going to work every morning, busting their ass, just to maintain that “standard” of living.

But maybe I’m projecting. Maybe they love it.

Isn’t that treating him as a charity case which cannot survive without others?

Largely, we can’t survive without others, not in the way we seem to prefer.

[erislover]

And pervert, let me caution here that I’m trying to discuss tendencies in behavior, what is encouraged by pure competition and no obligation, not what must naturally occur in all cases. Nothing stops any company from making salary information public, or at least within the company. Why is it that, in most places, it is improper to ask what another employee is making? Afraid some unfairness may be uncovered, or are we just encouraging people keep that information private? Of course, if they’re being paid what the market will bear, then everyone should know everyone else’s salary without asking…

Take a look at job listings. What proportion list the salary range they’re offering? Why wouldn’t this information be available at the start, if they only intend fair salaries and wish to be open and honest?

I don’t wish to suggest they’ve anything to hide, or that there’s some conspiracy, or even that officers of a corporation are cheating their employees, pulling one over on them, etc. Merely that the behavior that comes about in these situations doesn’t predominantly lend itself to a moral or even neutral perspective.

[pervert]

@erislover

No, no, that mythical place of employment where employees get treated right, the one they can just go to whenever they are disatisfied. You know the one. Isn’t it right down the street from… now wait, was it the KFC? And then a left on Main… or was it a right?

I’m truly sorry for whatever experiences you’ve had which lead you to believe that being treated “right” is a mythical place. I have not experienced such places. Except once, and I left there.

What the market will bear? You pay him what you think is fair. He’s a person, not a statistic.

Of course. But he is a person living with other people. If he offers a service which 10 other people offer, and he is only willing to take a higher wage than they are, are you really doing him a favor by supporting him in his delusion that his skills are worth more than they are?

If you can’t give a man working full-time a wage he can live on, even though the market bears it, how are you treating him? Like an end it himself, or like a person who needs to do whatever he can to get by today, even if it means sacrificing future opportunity, which just happens to be convenient to your bottom line?

But the situation you are describing is not “just convenient to my bottom line”. It is that, sure. But it is also the reality of the world. If you pay someone with low worth skills a wage disproportional to those skills, what incentive will he have to better his skills? Remember, that full time work hardly takes all of the time in the world. Many people go to school, read, study or do other things to improve their skills while working full time. A friend of mine did it recently. He changed carreers by taking classes, seeking out and being open to the opportunities.

do their bosses think of them as real people with realistic needs?

Well, I can’t speak for any individual bosses. But I can make the assumption that their bosses spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with all of the “needs” that their employees have.

I’d say there’s 12-15 people living in the three or four bedroom place across the street from me. It is very hard for me to look at that situation and think, “They really like this, there’s nothing they’d prefer more, and no one is really barring them from opportunity but themselves.”

Well, now lets not put words into my mouth. I don’t think I said that the world was all roses and cake.

Maybe I’m too idealistic.

No, I think you are not idealistic enough.

Maybe they love it.

I never said that poor people love the state they are in. I am simply saying that they have far more power over that state than anyone else does.

Largely, we can’t survive without others, not in the way we seem to prefer.

No, this is not true. I’m not sure what you mean by “the way we seem to prefer”, but most people live quite well and pay their way fully. In fact, most people are able to provide a decent safety net for those who cannot pay their own way.

It is certainly true that cooperative effort magnifies the labor of all of the participants. But only cooperative effort. Charitable effort does not have the same effect. Largely, that is.