Supporters of free trade and open markets generally don’t accept communism as a good way to run an economy, but there is nothing hypocritical about trading with a country that does think so. If a government decides that it is in its strategic interest to restrict trade with certain nations, that is a different matter.
Not that China’s economy can be called “communist” anymore (nor is it free market capitalism either).
No, of course not. Corporations have a responsibility to make money and to follow the law. If they break the law in their dealings then they are and should be punished. What law are they breaking by investing in Chinese companies?
Here is the thing. Corporations are amoral. Thats a given. YOU, as a consumer are (supposedly) not. So…if you, as a consumer, disagree with the policies of a given corporation, then you have the recourse to boycott that company…and to get all of your friends and other people of like mind to do so too. If there is enough outrage at the legal but perhaps distasteful actions of a company or corporation they will most likely change their behavior rather than lose a significant portion of their market share.
The Chinese don’t have a police state…but other than that, so what? Is it illegal? No? Then…well, whats your point?
By what metric do you claim the US economy is in decline? Do you have a cite?
Moving on, again, so what? Its not illegal at this time for US investors to invest in Chinese funds…so why shouldn’t they? If its a problem then perhaps you should either boycott those corporations (or individuals I guess) who are doing so or change the law. Ehe?
No…they have an obligation to honor the law and pay their taxes. Thats all the obligation they have to the US people or government. Their only other obligation is to make a profit.
Certainly not. They have no obligation to ‘this planet’ except insofar as they must honor local laws if they have facilities in other countries.
-XT
I tend to agree with the “no moral responsibility accept to the shareholders” argument, as well as the idea that the people running the corporations do have moral responsibilities that go beyond that. Perhaps that is a distinction without a difference.
A corporation is just a means to an end, and is not something one uses to structure one’s entire life and belief system around. If your moral code is “do unto others…”, then you can’t use a corporation to hide behind the idea of doing otherwise. Not morally, anyway.
Let’s say I start a company, Bayard Co., and make widgets. They’re great products. I become sucessful enough to hire one or two people and even to incorporate. I get an investor or two along the way. But, basically, I’m the show.
At what point in that process do I lose my moral responsibilities? Or is it your contention that, as a person, my only responsibilities are to make money and follow the law?
This is great debates and not IMHO. Do you have a cite that states a large proportion of the population are sociopaths?
You as an individual? It varies…perhaps you never lose them. Perhaps you lose them right away. Moral responsibilities aren’t dictated TOO you…they are part OF you (IMHO). So…keep em or lose em, thats up to you as an individual.
Corporations don’t HAVE morals. They are tools designed to make money. The only ‘responsibilities’ that they have are those that are set for them…i.e. to follow the laws in the country they are operating from.
Again, it depends on you as a person. You understand that morals come from inside…they aren’t dictated to you from outside? I, for instance, can’t TELL you what your moral responsibilities are…since my morals are different than yours. You have to determine them for yourself.
As a person you decide. As a corporation ‘you’ don’t have any…except those I’ve already described. Its really that simple.
-XT
So, the four people in my corporation each have individual morals. Check. So, what is this “corporation” that exists outside the moral responsibilities of those four people? Let’s say we’re all on the same page, morality-wise, and decide that it’s wrong to sell shoddy merchandise. But, hey, there’s a lot of money in it. So, you’re saying that when we’re “the corporation”, we should have no moral compunctions about selling shoddy merchandise, even though, “as people”, we understand it to be wrong? I can’t get behind that idea.
There is no “corporation” apart from the people who populate it. It derives its morality from the people who make it up. It has moral responsibilities because any group of people has moral responsibilities. You can’t arbitrarily draw a circle around a group of people and claim that the new “group” has an inherent morality.
I’m saying that its your decision. You have no ‘moral responsibility’ to do other than honor the laws and pay your taxes. Anything else is up to YOU. Its not some magical process…one day you are moral the next day you are not. You, as an individual have to make those choices.
Your 4 person ‘corporation’ (you most likely wouldn’t formally incorporate with just 4 people, but what the hell) is just a tool…it isn’t alive. You, as the owner or CEO or whatever can take on whatever responsibilities you want…or none (except those dictated to you by society…i.e. follow the laws and pay your taxes).
Then if you ever own or create a company do it your own way. Its not like the other corporations will all stop talking to you or won’t let you play in their reindeer games or something.
If I have a hammer I can either use it to drive in nails…or to bash someone over the head with it. The hammer is amoral…its just a tool. How I use it is up to me as an individual. The hammer has no moral responsibility to society or The World™ or anything else. I have whatever moral responsibility I choose for myself, aside from whats imposed on me by society (follow the laws and customs, don’t wack people on the head with a hammer, etc).
Get it?
-XT
I think our argument hinges on different views of what the “corporation” is. When you say it’s not alive, and compare it to a hammer, I’m with you that it has no moral responsibilities. I was trying to get at that in my earlier post (15, I think). A corporation, defined as a collection of money, machines, etc., is just an amoral thing.
I’m viewing the corporation as the group of people who clock in every day and use the money, machines, etc., to further whatever ends. Those people, of course, have individual moral judgements, which I think is what you’re saying. I think we’re going to disagree on the point “You have no ‘moral responsibility’ to do other than honor the laws and pay your taxes”, but that’s a topic for a different day.
If corporations have no moral responsibilities…then it is silly to ask me to be moral to them. If I can screw them/steal from them and so on…that is fine.
It goes both ways or not at all.
Last several years? Seems to me to be too short of a time frame to evaluate the success of failure of the largest economy in the world ($13 trillion).
Few people would argue that China provides as much freedom as the US or Western countries. However, it is simplistic to refer to one of the oldest and most populous nations in such simplistic “Good” vs “Evil” terms.
Perhaps you should articulate a better OP. A good start would to not presume everyone is already in instant agreement with all of your assumptions.
A corporation is a legal entity in the sense that it can be sued or legally held responsible for their actions. This has the effect of limiting the liability of the individuals who own and run the company. It does not, however, protect individuals from breaking the law and hiding behind the company.
In spite of what people here seem to believe, corporations do not have free reign to run amok and do as they please. There are a number of regulatory agencies in the US (the SEC for example) as well as various audit firms who’s job it is to monitor corporations compliance with the law.
A corporations responsibility is to make money legally. It is the government’s job to determine what is legal.
How are corporations allowed to steal from you? 
I’m going to go back to my original post and ask people whether we are making a distinction without a difference by saying a corporation doesn’t need to act morally, but the people who make up the corporation do. And as a matter of fact, we hold corporate officers responsible for decisions made in the name of the corporation, even if those officers might have objected to the decision (as long as they stayed on as part of the corporation).
Let’s say the board of a corporation decided to flout the pollution laws of the state and dump some toxic waste in the local river. We don’t say Mr. X, on the board, is immune from prosecution because he voted against doing so. In a sense, you take on more moral responsibility when you create a corporation, because you are often responsible for the actions of others.
Yes, I think it is a distinction without a difference. That’s the point I’ve been trying (and failing) to make. The “corporation” is the group of people. Therefore, if people have moral responsibilities, the corporation does as well. Just like “my group of four pals” has a moral responsibility not to burn down the corner store.
Interesting point. In practice, do officers who object to illegal policies actually face the same legal consequences as those who lead the illegal efforts? I would hope that there would be some consideration given to that when punishments are handed out. Anyway, I think we’re also mixing legal and moral questions here (not meant directly at you, John Mace). Legal and moral obligations are separate questions.
I think the main confusion here is that we all mean something different when we say ‘moral’ or ‘moral responsibility’. Not surprising that…since every one of us has a different definition of what that means.
Who is asking you to be moral? As for stealing…thats against the law. IOW you are confusing terms here. Corporations absolutely have to obey the law…or they get in trouble. That is different from ‘moral responsibility’…which can mean whatever you want it to mean. Environmentally friendly…community responsibility…equal opportunity…family oriented…discriminatory based on sex or sexual preference (if your morals swing that way)…religiously motivated and oriented…etc etc.
Exactly…a corporation is just a tool (though thats not what I’m hinging my arguments on). Its only ‘moral responsibility’ is to obey the laws and make money. The PEOPLE running the company may or may not have ‘moral responsibility’ depending on their individual preferences…and what they view ‘moral’ as.
For instance, if I’m a strict biblical kind of guy I might view my ‘moral responsibility’ as being that I allow no same sex oriented individuals to work for me. Or perhaps I view my ‘moral responsibility’ as being such that only good Christians can work for me. Or maybe its to be concerned with the environment and support environmental issues and causes. Or perhaps its to only eat Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. The corporation itself is amoral…I as an individual have to choose first what morality is and then decide whether its important to follow that or not.
THATS what my argument hinges on.
We’ll just have to disagree then…which is fine. For my part I don’t believe anyone can or should be forced to act morally…because by forcing someone to do so you are imposing YOUR (or someone’s) idea of what ‘moral’ is. Which is distasteful to me in the extreme. The only thing anyone, be they corporation or individual is REQUIRED to do is follow the laws and pay their taxes…anything else comes from within and should not be imposed by fiat.
-XT
Neither. It’s a moral responsibility, just like your title. Which means it’s not a fiction, and which means it exists whatever the law says. The law is irrelevant to your question.
I’m referring to the structure composed of people and paper and data that a corporation is. That thing, that semi-organism does have a responsibility to behave morally. As it’s not sentient, the responsibility of choice falls on the people who are it’s components, just as a dog’s owner or child’s parent is responsible for controlling them
In other words, the corporation has a responsibility to behave morally, and the people who partially compose it have a responsibility to make it do so. I suppose you could argue that the wording is wrong, and that “responsibility” shouldn’t apply to something not actually alive ( depending on how you define the term ), but I used the word because the OP did.
Which is why I have no problem saying that a corporation has responsibility, even if using that terminology irritates some people. Saying that it doesn’t just means you get people laying all the blame on it, then claiming it can’t be blamed.
And you can treat a corporation like it has responsibility, punish it with fines and such and it will react and modify it’s behavior. It’s not like blaming a rock for falling on someone’s head and breaking it with a hammer; that won’t change the behavior of other rocks. Fining a corporation or breaking it up does modify the behavior of coprorations. They act like moral agents, not inanimate ones.
Everything capable of making choices has a responsibility to behave morally and has an “obligation” towards the planet. People, corporations, religions, governments; everything. Morality isn’t someone’s job; you don’t hire some guy to stand around and be moral for you. Morality is the way the world is supposed to work, not a job that can be handed off to this person or that agency.
As for the planet, saying that someone or something doesn’t have a responsibility towards the planet is silly. If IBM somehow blew up the planet, does it deserve no blame ? Did it not have a responsibility to NOT blow up the planet ?
Really? Define them then. If mine are different than your’s, who’s is right? Who decides?
Chimps and great apes are capable of making choices…do they have the same responsibility? Wolves make choices too…same? A lot of non-human creatures are capable of making choices…who decides what’s ‘moral’ for them? You? Me? The nebulous ‘mankind’?
Define what ‘responsibility toward the planet’ is. Why is your definition the correct one?
-XT
There’s a lot of gray area as to what is considered moral. Is it moral to do business with a totalitarian regime, even if that business is legitimate and beneficial? What about developing products that could potentially hurt people like cigarettes or junk food? What about making products that are designed to hurt people like weapons?
That’s why we have laws. Otherwise, corporations would simply do whatever market forces influence them to do.
Yes, I was mixing moral and legal arguments, but in this case I think the one derives from the other. But if we just look at it morally, do you consider Mr. X moral just because he voted not to pollute the river, unless he reported that to the authorities? Many of us who are against the Iraq war have had our opinion of Colin Powell drop thru the basement because he was complicit in starting a war he knew damn well was a terrible idea, based on a flawed premise. Same thing here.
Exactly.
-XT