This has been answered well. I’d like to also add that in the case of actions from a company done some time ago, the company is hardly the company it was. No one who worked there then works there now. Most of the property and buildings have changed. Often the only link between the two is the name.
IIRC, this is especially true of Volkswagon. I think that after the war, there was no more volkswagon. The allies, trying to spur business, gave or sold cheaply the name volkswagon to an aspiring businessman. So, if this is true, then you are punishing Volkswagon not for their previous sins, but punishing it for one person’s decision long ago to purchase an established name instead of creating a new one.
I’m not sure I disagree with this (and Marley23’s analysis), but I think it raises three questions:
Can shunning only be logical if its goal is punishment?
What is it about the identity of a company such that it can change so that it isn’t responsible for previous actions that isn’t true about the identity of a person?
In business, if a company’s start-up capital is gained unethically, even if it stops using unethical practices, isn’t it still benefitting from its mis-deeds?
Sure, you could look at it that way. But what’s the alternative? Should the company go into liquidation and return its capital, tainted though it is by original sin, to the shareholders?
As I said, it’s my belief that if the company isn’t doing anything wrong, then boycotting doesn’t make sense.
I said, “If the company isn’t doing anything wrong, boycotting is stupid.” Employing people who do evil things obviously doesn’t fit that criteria. “There during the unethical actions” is rather vague. Are we talking about a janitor who was sweeping the floors during WWII, and still works there, or are we talking about the CEO? Yeah, if they employ unethical people, then I understand the boycott. If not, then I don’t.
And no, I don’t think “stopping last year” would necessarily make the case for still boycotting a company. What if the company decided to mend its ways, fired every employee who was involved in the wrongdoing, and donated copious amounts of money to charities to benefit the victims of their previous wrongdoing? Would you still boycott them? Why?
Let’s ask the converse question: Is it logical to shun a company for past deeds when the company no longer commits these deeds, no longer employs any of the people who committed these deeds, when there is no possible way that shunning the company will have any effect of any of the people who committed the misdeeds, and when no good can possible come from it?
You said it yourself: A company is a “collection of people”. A company is an abstract entity; it’s the people who are responsible for their actions. As already pointed out, if we continue to punish a company when it has changed for the better, that removes all incentive to ever change.
But who is benefitting? If none of the perpetrators are around any more, then how does it help to punish innocent people who had nothing to do with it?
I don’t have a problem with German cars, but I was born after the war. Growing up, I met a lot of World War II veterans who refused to buy anything that was made in Japan. When I bought a Ford automobile, I did think about Henry Ford and his support of anti-semitic propaganda. I decided that I shouldn’t punish the modern Ford company for the actions of its long-retired/dead founder. I still think he was an evil SOB who gets a free ride in too many history books.
I did boycott Toshiba after reading that they sold sophisticated machine tools to the Soviet Union, enabling them to make much quieter propellers for their submarines. I consider that treasonous behavior.
You seem to think I’m arguing that the boycott is a good idea. I’m not. I’m suggesting that it might be rational (i.e. having its basis in reasons, as opposed to emotions). One can believe something is rational and still strongly disagree with it (because of differences is value judgements rather than in facts and logic).
In any case, I think I made it fairly clear that I don’t have a strong position, I was just curious how you would answer the questions.
It isn’t clear to me how this is the converse question, but I’ll address it. At what point did we establish that no possible good could come from it? It seems to me that it has some deterrent effect, just not enough to outweigh the negative consequences. What I was asking in the question was whether or not there is some other basis on which shunning can be said to be logical (I’m not saying there is, I’m just wondering if the debate does indeed come down to a question of punishment).
Ok, maybe so, but it more strongly deters companies from being unethical in the first place. Under the system that says as soon as they stop being unethical they are untouchable, a company simply has to avoid getting caught in the act.
If a company gets its initial start by doing something unethical, then everyone who then benefits from the company’s later success is in some way benefitting from the unethical actions, right? So that would include contemporary investors. To be clear, I’m not saying that VW necessarily fits this mold.
That’s a good point. I’m sure there are situations where this happens, right? Like when a company starts out without the proper liscensing or something.
And I disagree. I do not think it rational. It is possible for me to understand your position and yet still disagree with it.
If you are contending that good can come from it, please expound.
I don’t see how. It was already suggested that boycotting a company that has already changed for the better would in fact do absolutely nothing to encourage positive change. If you are suggesting otherwise, please explain. How could punishing a company that has made positive changes possibly encourage other companies to make positive changes?
Sorry, you lost me.
What does “getting caught” have to do with it? We’re not talking about whether companies are being deceitful. If you’re suggesting there’s any logic in boycotting companies just in case they’re doing evil stuff that we don’t know about, I can’t go along with that.
I just don’t see the point of punishing “sins of the fathers”. I’m sure you could eventually trace every person on earth’s wealth to some sort of unethical transaction at some point, if you go back enough generations. Maybe a relative of yours bought a cotton shirt during slavery times, and his wealth was passed on to you through inheritance. I would imagine every person on earth has “benefitted from unethical actions” in some way. Seems to me you’re putting way too fine a point on this.
It could be argued but it’s stupid nevertheless. When I was growing up, if you had a beef with someone, it stayed between the two of you. If you dared tried to visit some “blame” upon a relative you opened yourself to untold beatings from “disinterested” third-parties. And you were labelled an asshole.
“Getting caught” has to do with it because that is part of punishment which is part of deterrence. Here’s what I’m saying: The position that a company should not be punished once it stops being unethical entails that if a company does something unethical without anyone knowing and later stops it can never be punished for it. Under this system, a company might be able to “get away with it.” If, however, a company might expect to be punished after the fact when someone finds out what happened, there is less chance of getting away with it. This would have a deterrent effect.
I’m quite certain that in the US system, a company may be punished (fined) for something they did some time ago, but have since stopped doing. That makes sense to me, but maybe I’m the only one.
This is a fair point. Obviously we have the draw the line somewhere. It is simplest to draw the line at never punishing people from benefitting from someone elses unethical action. However, is that simple solution the best? It seems to me that sometimes it makes sense to prevent someone from benefitting from the unethical transactions of others (if you “legally” buy a car that someone else stole, you don’t get to keep it…etc.). You can argue that this a slippery slope, but it seems to me that such an argument is an argument against the status quo as well.
I guess I see your point, but right now we’re talking about a company that bears little resemblance to the company that did wrong. All the wrongdoers are either dead, or have long since left the company. When I say it makes no sense to boycott a company that’s not doing anything wrong, I’m talking about a company that has truly changed for the better, not a company that just temporarily stopped doing whatever it was doing out of fear of getting caught. Obviously, that’s going to be a subjective call. You seem to want to box me into some sort of absolute pronouncement as to some exact criteria under which one would boycott a company. But it doesn’t work that way. It’s a personal decision, based on ones opinion.
If a company did something wrong in the recent past, and is essentially the same company with the same people, and there just doesn’t happen to be any evidence that they’re doing anything wrong right now, but I suspect that they are - sure, I can see boycotting them. But that’s not what I’m talking about.
Just because there’s no absolute, objective line between a “good” company and a “bad” company, doesn’t mean it’s logical to boycott a good company. It just means that it might be difficult to make such a determination.
But in that example, if you are unaware that the car was stolen, you really haven’t done anything immoral. I’m not suggesting any “simple” solution. YOU are the one who is over-simplifying.
Again, I don’t know why you want to turn this into some sort of absolute, black-and-white pronouncement. I feel like you’re just playing a game where you’re trying to trap me now. Again, it doesn’t make sense to me to boycott a company that no longer does evil. I’m not saying there’s any kind of simple formula to determine if a company is evil, but that doesn’t mean it’s logical to boycott a benevolent company.
Heh, something about the way each of us writes is mutually grating, Blowero. Maybe we have to learn to avoid these one-on-one encounters.
Ok, but I’m suggesting that we punish companies for their unethical actions, even if they are presently, and expected to be in the future, perfectly upstanding. We do that in the current system, and I think it’s perfectly rational. Should there be a time limit on this? Yeah, probably, but I think as soon as they stop being unethical is unsuitable.
I’m not asking for an absolute pronouncement, just trying to understand your abstract framework for when it is appropriate and when not. If it varies so much case by case, there may not be a point in searching out a general framework. But I would suggest that if it is so subjective, then it is difficult to critique the rationality of someone else’s decision.
Right, it was an example of how we punish people for indirectly benefitting from illgotten gains (although it this case admittedly for tangential reasons). More to the point, people that invest/work for Company X probably know of Company X’s history, so they make a decision whether or not to benefit from that history.
Not a black-and-white pronouncement, but one removed from a particular example --an analytical framework for when and when not to boycott. I take your point that such an objective framework may not be possible. I’m not trying to trap you.
