OpinionIf a business is immoral, even if legal, it shouldn't be done
      – BorgClown, 2009-08-15 at 07:46:16   (13 comments)

On 2009-08-15 at 07:54:06, BorgClown wrote...
The relativity of morality can't excuse everything. If you sell people to Mexican drug lords, that's immoral. If you adulterate baby milk with melamine, immoral. If you abuse your monopoly to overcharge, immoral. If you gamble the financial system with a bank bail out, immoral.
On 2009-08-15 at 07:56:59, BorgClown wrote...
So many troubles wouldn't be if we all had had better ethics. Few school plans teach practical (as in useful for daily life) ethics.
On 2009-08-15 at 14:50:58, DigitalBoss wrote...
Selling people to drug lords is already illegal here in the US, it is called kidnapping. I know nothing of baby milk. Most of the monopolies in the US today are owned by, or sanctioned by, the government. Bank bailouts in the US are a direct result in the government requiring banks to make home loans to people who cannot afford them. Where is the need for morality? It is already illegal or caused by an inept government? I am a libertarian. I believe that I should be allowed to do anything as long as I do not infringe upon the rights of others through force or through fraud. Schools need to teach individual responsibility more instead of the group think that they teach now.
On 2009-08-15 at 16:29:11, Scarletxstarlet wrote...
Morality cannot be effectively legislated and it really shouldn't be attempted. I think most businesses have some practice which we would find immoral, but that's the nature of capitalism. If we have a problem with the system, it's no good to treat the symptoms.
On 2009-08-15 at 18:17:33, DigitalBoss wrote...
If a business does things that I do not like, I just refuse to trade with them.
On 2009-08-15 at 19:29:04, BorgClown wrote...
My bad, I meant to write arms. It's legal if you sell them to a US citizen, even if you know he sells them to drug lords.
On 2009-08-16 at 02:37:36, Baslisks wrote...
have you by chance played a game called bioshock?
On 2009-08-16 at 09:21:44, BorgClown wrote...
Not me. Why is Bioshock relevant?
On 2009-08-16 at 16:24:42, Baslisks wrote...
it talks about the complete freedom of economy and law. Everything is influenced. Even the alarm systems you can pay off. Everything is money based. Just a really good thing.
On 2009-08-17 at 13:48:59, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Business tend to be perceived as evil when they are either maximising profit (which is generally considered a requirement) or simply indifferent. Usually individuals in an organisation have specific roles and that they don't stray from, which means that 'caring' tends to fall through the gaps - people don't take responsibility if they think that someone else should/will do so. I think Google's premise "don't be evil" (as opposed to "don't do evil") is a great way to grant their employees permission to take responsibility by giving them something to point at or refer to. They're not a perfect organisation, but they do a good job of looking like one.
On 2009-08-18 at 03:38:52, BorgClown wrote...
I'm speaking of real evil upper-management decisions, like poisoning a village using cheap instead of safe mining practices. Those are deliberately harmful and selfish decisions, and the line workers, bean counters, etc., have little say in them, if they ever realize what's happening.
On 2009-08-18 at 03:44:16, BorgClown wrote...
The melamine milk is another example. Who the fuck thought that adding a industrial resin to milk was a good idea? Who approved it? Who ordered it? Chinese are the worse, but even the french Nestlé did it. It was used to fake protein content in order to fool the food quality controls into approving low grade milk.
On 2009-08-20 at 09:55:22, Thelevellers wrote...
Well I agreed, but the moral issue is a tricky one, I heard the start of what could be an interesting radio series last night that brought up the subject, but I think it is worth it's own discussion... *makes one*