I agree. So what? Some people are stupid. Who cares?
How does the existence of stupid people prove your claim that “Corporate personhood is an elastic concept that means what the stockholders want it to mean.”? Evidently if all these people are complaining, then corporate personhood apparently does NOT mean what they want it to mean, or else what’re they complaining about?
The corporation that the shareholder owns has a basis for suing the thief on the behalf of the shareholder.
For example. My father owned a corporation, a whole stinking corporation all by himself. It was his auto body repair shop. His rinky dinky corporation had the same legal construct as a huge corporation, it’s just that the total value was quite small, and my dad owned all the shares.
Steal from that corporation, morally, you’re stealing from him, because the entire impact of that theft is borne on his shoulders. If he had a business partner, you’re stealing 1/2 the amount from the two of them. If he had 20,000 business partners, you’re stealing 1/20001 from each of them.
I can’t add anything to the debate, since all the arguments I would make have already been made; but I can add personal experience. This happens to me every day.
I work for a large retail corporation - one of the five largest retailers in the world, actually - and this company has a profit-sharing program for its employees. We are given bonuses based upon sales and shrink.
Shrink - for those of you who are unfamilar with retail sales - is the difference between the cost of book inventory and physical inventory. Or in less jargonistic terms, the amount of stuff we paid for versus the amount of stuff we actually own. Retail theft contributes mightly to shrink. Shrink diminishes the amount of my bonus, as well as the shares of the company that I own.
So, kanicbird, when a thief shoplifts something from my store, he does not steal from me - legally. But his actions certainly cause me harm; so morally, he is not innocent of theft from me, simply because it’s at one remove.
The shareholders. While their percentage of ownership is the same, the value of the assets of the corporation are reduced by the value of the stolen item. So say that the corporation is a diamond trader and has an inventory of diamonds. Someone steals all of the diamonds. The company has no more value in the assets of the diamonds (let’s assume they had no insurance) and the value of the stock plummets to zero. So the thief turned the value of the shares from X to zero.
From a moral standpoint, I don’t see how someone who steals something can ever be considered innocent. People steal so that they can benefit from something that they haven’t worked towards or invested in. They didn’t steal nothing - they obviously got something for it. Regardless of who they stole from and what the effects on that person or entity are, how can the thief possibly be in the clear, morally?
Even a successful thief loses something. He diminishes himself. He is a lesser person for taking something that does not belong to him.
Of course there’s such a thing as “moral status”. You can’t inflict a moral harm on a corporation; only on the owners of that corporation
It is not wrong to take something out of a wastebasket, because wastebaskets cannot suffer the moral wrong of being stolen from.
I would have thought the point was obvious from debates about vegetarianism. Is it morally wrong to eat meat? If you believe that cattle and pigs don’t have moral status as a person, then it is OK. If you believe there is no such thing as “moral status” (in the sense we are discussing) then cannibalism is A-OK.
Regards,
Shodan
Your question is simple when asked like this:
"Who are you stealing from when you steal from a corporation?"
The answer is: The shareholders.
When you add “morally” you are free to put in any sort of weasling you wish based on how you define morality. It is not as if there is some sort of Universal Absolute against which you can measure your definition. If it is the case that in your personal definition there is no immorality in stealing from an organization that is not itself perfectly moral (again, by your definition), then by your definition you are not “morally stealing.”
So what? Such a paradigm is not likely to be consistent with the one established by common agreement, and a society built on that sort of “morality” is likely not to be able to sustain itself.
Not only is there no such thing as “moral status”, there’s also no such thing as “moral harm”. These are just terms you’ve made up. There is harm; there isn’t “moral harm”. Harm is harm.
You can’t just take the word “moral” and attach it to anything you want, any more than you can the word “effervescent”.
The phrase has no meaning; except for one you have personally attributed to it, and you’re not explaining what that is in terms which have actual linguistic meaning. “Moral status” and “moral harm” do not mean anything any more than “effervescent status” and “effervescent harm”.
The only way I can see the word “moral” being used in anything close to this context is in describing the actions of a coporations. “Are they moral?” Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If you’re maintaining that you cannot steal from anyone who has done immoral things, then you’ve pretty much said that theft does not exist.
This affluent conversation can’t go anywhere when it consists of simply attaching perpendicular adjectives to omnipresent nouns and claiming that means something in the salty context.
What?!? All this time, GE’s been leading me on. Guess I better tell the caterer and the florist…