Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
The Chinese police state is a great investment says US hedge funds.
The US economy may be on decline but US hedge funds investors considers the Chinese police state to be a good investment for our global economy.
“China’s Hot Stock: Orwell Inc” is the headlines over an article in the NYTimes published September 19, 2007.
“In a stunning report in the New York Times last week, correspondent Keith Bradsher documented the rise of China's electronic surveillance industry, whose leading companies have incorporated themselves in the United States and obtained the lion's share of their capital from U.S. hedge funds. Though ostensibly private, these companies are a for-profit adjunct of the Chinese government.” By Ha rold Meyerson Washington Post
Wednesday, September 19, 2007.
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?
U.S., Inc. is open for business.
We are witnessing the demise of the nation-state, both from the right wing that wants to run a country like a business and from the left-wing who attempt to erase country boundaries and redistribute wealth to others who are more deserving.
Corporations have one responsibility only--to make a profit for their shareholders, all else is immaterial to them.
It is up to the people, through their elected representatives, to enact laws to control rapacious companies, and not to allow commercial interests to overide the interest and well-being of the population, not only of a individual country, but the well-being of the planet.
We all live in community and our actions often do not affect only ourselves.
Yes. Everyone and every organization has a responsibility to the rest of the community/human race/environment/planet.
How can we exist if it is otherwise?
Socrates.
I am of the opinion that, interesting though this topic is, it does not fall into the category of even NQS. That is unless philosophy and politics are sciences, and they're not.
Ellis
What is your definition of science? One definition found in my dictionary is--"a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study".
My dictionary would agree with me if I said that "Art is not a science but the study of art is a science."
I agree with Ellis's earlier comment, however:
"It is up to the people, through their elected representatives, to enact laws to control rapacious companies, and not to allow commercial interests to overide the interest and well-being of the population, not only of a individual country, but the well-being of the planet."
But hang on. Having made "a profit for their shareholders" corporations then have a lot of bullion to spread around in promoting themselves and ensuring "the people, through their elected representatives," don't enact laws to control them. We're up against it I'm afraid Ellis.
"What is your definition of science? One definition found in my dictionary is--"a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study". "
This is the "anything we care to study, so long as it's systematized. Astrology is 'science', as is numerology, ethics, and everything else. This is a conflation of terms. Modern science does not include any of these things.
Fiend
As I said I cannot reach across the gap that seperates us.
terry---I am a tragic true believer!! I think that if the 'the people' are pushed too hard they will insist on being heard (eg Burma at the moment). If power is not to come from the barrel of a gun then it has to come from the people, when they realise that they are vitally important to their rulers (even the ones they elected!). Their representatives can and do control the crazier desires of the corporations, they have the power, but yes, at the moment it seems that we really are up against it. This could be due to the fact that lately we have traded some of our freedoms for security. Is this a wise choice?
PS I still think that this topic is really interesting and I enjoy discussing politics-- but it is not Science nor NQS.
Ellis
I would argue that the study of morality is a science. Art is not a science but art as an object of study is a science. I think that we often restrict that term to the natural sciences and especially to technology. I would say that any domain of knowledge that meets standards of principles, methods, and universal recognition qualifies as a science.
We restrict the term "science" today to those things to which can be sensibly addressed by the scientific method which excludes both morality and art, except insofar as those subjects produce measurable effects in the human brain.
We who do not wish to mislead people that we are applying the scientific method to subjects when we are not. The success of science has given it a special place in our society - a sort of Underwriter's Laboratory seal of approval.
It does not warrant for particular uses, but it ensures the 'product' has been tested within certain situations. It's because science (actual science) as been so successful that the term is now so willfully hijacked by non-scientists to describe whatever it is that they want to believe or assert.
This is why TV ads like to imply that 'scientists' have tested their products and why goobers like Edgar Cayce and other mediums laced their readings with words they had borrowed from science.
Of course, if one doesn't care if one is being misleading, he might use words to mean anything he wishes.
New member - excuse me for butting in, but you're on one of my favorite topics and I hope you don't mind my 2 cents.
Among the aspects of science already mentioned is that it (real science) operates within a very restricted set of rules of evidence, which makes the study of art and/or morality difficult, but not impossible, imo.
Science is limited to mutually agreeable definitions of reality and most of the definitions involved in these two topics are fuzzy from the scientific perspective. Doesn't make them wrong - just makes "scientific analysis" difficult.
One can use a hammer as a screw-driver, but most of us would realize that's a waste of time.
"Scientific analysis" of morality as a statement of what we "ought to do", for example, is nonsense. OTOH, what might be open to scientific scrutiny is, for a few examples,
1) examination of brainwave activity in humans (on micro level)
2) activity of humans acting in various situations
Both of these examples clearly fall under psychology, neurology, or sociology.
Yes, although you might get an argument against defining psychology as a science.
My neighbor, as a christian-type philosopher, always criticizes science for its inability to "answer the big questions". (Of course, he primarily wants to fight over the 'truth' of evolution.) But, imo, science isn't really set up to handle those big philosophical questions. In their hubris, some scientists have attempted overall ideas, like the Big Bang theory, but all that is really based on philosophy and strays from what I think of as true science. Nothing wrong with these ideas, just label them as they are.
I agree MrW. There's nothing wrong with this interesting topic, it just isn't science or aanywhere near it.
That's why it is in the Not Quite Science forum, where it belongs.
I don't think corporations can have morals, because they aren't human.
I think that is too easy a cop out, to say they are not human. I feel that they are all too human and show our species at its worst sometimes. These corporations are made up of people some of whom do have scruples. Some corporations do have a type of morality and often practise philanthropy of one sort or another. If the company has inclusive policies and treats its workers fairly and with decency and produces goods which are ethically 'clean' then its probably not good for us to be too cynical. But how many corporations would fall into this category? It is a possibility, but while a company's main goal is to make money for shareholders those who are more ethical will remain in the minority, and always at risk from the raids of the others.
Capitalism is not for wimps!
Well, on the face of it, AR is right and it's no cop out to say that, because corporations "behave" that way, imo. It's interesting that the confusion may come from a Supreme Court ruling, in the 1880's I think, that Corporations will be treated like individuals, from the law's perspective. Should that be revised?
Mr W- Whilst the US corporations in America may conform to some ruling in an American court the capitalist corporations of other countries (eg Russia, Japan, Europe) are not so constrained. The chinese govt backed organisations are introducing a whole new way of squeezing the last ounce out of its workers, as do many of the businesses now being carved up in the former Eastern European countries. And how the new businesses of Iraq will function will be interesting to see.
The nature of corporations has to be to make money, to create not only wealth but also debt and most of all to expand, to grow larger and larger consuming greedily as they go.
Ellis,
I agree. I was playing with the odd idea that the US courts have that a corp. is a person, which it clearly is not.
>"The nature of corporations has to be to make money, to create not only wealth but also debt and most of all to expand, to grow larger and larger consuming greedily as they go."
As you imply, corporations act more like a "mindless profit machine" and I'm interested in the idea that Darwin's laws of natural selection may be operating here.
If the corporations are the new city-states (possible, at least), what can put the brakes on their growth? Any ideas?
We do seem to be developing, perhaps evolving, as Orwell foreshadowed in 1984. I do not think that it is possible to stop this trend really as, for the way we live now, continual growth is seen as good. The only way to stop this has to be through legislation by the elected governments which actually reflect the wishes of their citizens. This would then mean cutting that country off from the perceived advantages of free trade as goverment tariffs and bans impede trade. I think that the majority of the population see the extension of debt (both personal and national) as really desirable as it enables them to buy goods and services at cheaper prices and in greater quantity. Consumption becomes important and for the individual person we hear shopping described as a hobby or activity.
Most of the population in developed countries do not save their money. After spending directly they invest any residue. They become shareholders, property owners, contribute to superannuation and literally have, even at the grass roots level, a vested interest in the present situation continuing. There is no incentive for our elected representatives to change the status quo as we all enjoy the consuming and spending on credit far too much. Greed is indeed good, and who knows perhaps it can go on forever!