Are Corporations Inherently Evil?

[spoons]

Me and my friend are split on this one. I think they are, because they are only after the bottom line and don't care how they make money, whereas he believes they are trying to advance society and have proper morals.

What are your thoughts on this? (Sorry about the short first post btw)

[lisati]

Only as evil as those "at the top" direct them to be......

[regala]

Me and my friend are split on this one. I think they are, because they are only after the bottom line and don't care how they make money, whereas he believes they are trying to advance society and have proper morals.


You belief is understandable, but in the case you are right, what is Canonical ?

[Johnsie]

No. It just depends what people do with their money and power. Socialism can be just as evil, because people manipulate it to make a profit for themselves at the taxpayers expense and there is often lots of corruption and money wasted.

[samjh]

Me and my friend are split on this one. I think they are, because they are only after the bottom line and don't care how they make money, whereas he believes they are trying to advance society and have proper morals.

What are your thoughts on this? (Sorry about the short first post btw)

Firstly, you need to define "corporations".

I will assume you are talking about large businesses (ie. let's say, more than 1000 employees and annual revenue exceeding $10 million).

Having said that, it's irrelevant anyway. Corporations, like everybody in the world, are trying to make money. I try to make money, and you probably do the same. Businesses are no different, regardless of their size. Businesses aim to maximise profit for the benefit of the business owner or owners - be they individuals, partnerships, families, other business, or public shareholders.

People who invest in business have a right to receive a return on their investment. If a business fails to deliver a reasonable return, then it's ineffective and measures need to be taken to increase its effectiveness in making money.

Businesses increase their effectiveness in making money by: making better products or providing better services than competitors, enticing sales by reducing prices, increasing prices to increase profit margin per unit of sale, cutting employee's pay, laying off staff, relocating operations to places where cheaper workers are available, streamlining business processes, buying other businesses, selling off parts of the business, and so on.

Are those things evil? Sometimes they seem unfair. When I got laid off I felt hard done by, but regardless of my personal feelings, it's the result of a business' need to survive. If my employer didn't take such hard measures, it might have collapsed entirely, leaving over a thousand employees jobless and tens of thousands of customers short-changed. Which is the greater evil?

Evil and good are not black and white. Nor can everything be divided between the two. Many things are neither evil or good. Businesses are one of those things that belong to neither category. Rather, businesses need only to obey the law, and abide by the ethical code of whatever industry organisation they may belong to. If they do anything "better", then that's a plus for them, but there is no moral obligation.

[Paqman]

they are only after the bottom line and don't care how they make money

Kind of painting with broad strokes aren't you? I'd say a lot of companies are very image-conscious, and wouldn't do anything that could hurt their reputation. Companies that exist to provide a service are usually bending over backwards to try and provide the best quality service for their customers that they can. Anything else puts you out of business fast.

Corporations are just people at the end of the day. Some of them genuinely are devious money-grubbing sociopaths, but most aren't.

[sisco311]

first try to define what "evil" is and what "proper morals" are, then we can debate... :)

[MaindotC]

There's a movie called Zeitgeist that explains about U. S. corporations. It is a federal law that the interests of the investors (aka money) comes before anything else - before environmental concerns, health & safety conditions, and before social responsibility to a community. That being said, corporations operating under these rules, and I doubt that the U. S. is the only one that has such regulation, are evil. Zappos is ok though.

[PuddingKnife]

An excellent film on the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa3wyaEe9vE (trailer)

[original_jamingrit]

Corporations aren't evil. Corporations are just groups of people. Sometimes they may be greedy, but they aren't evil. And sometimes they're guided by a sort of "moral tunnel-vision", that gets them to do something that doesn't really seem evil until after it's done, or allows them to take a course of action with "evil" implications that they were too ignorant to consider.

I don't think there exists any corporation that ever sets out to do evil. Except for the "Fluffy Bunnies Inc.". Man, those guys just go out of their way to do evil :-P.

[PuddingKnife]

I don't think there exists any corporation that ever sets out to do evil. :-P.


Depends what you classify as "setting out to do evil".

Standard Oil, Ford, and IBM helping the nazis?

IBM and Ford supporting the apartheid government in South Africa?

DynCorp forcing underaged girls into prostitution rings?

Pfizer overcharging for AIDS meds and blocking cheaper drugs?

Coca-Cola torturing and murdering trade union activists in Columbia?


Corporations are certainly capable of terrible acts. Do they set out to do evil? Or are they merely comfortable with evil actions if they can turn a profit?

[lovinglinux]

An excellent film on the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa3wyaEe9vE (trailer)

I agree. This is an excellent documentary.

http://www.thecorporation.com/

[ice60]

corporations aren't inherently evil, but michael moore is.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

he's very fat too. and that's a big fat fact.

[mikeize]

In their quest to maximize profits/minimize costs, many commercial corporations feel pressured by market competition to push the limits of the law/morality to maintain and grow themselves. Also, for anyone who's ever dealt with bureaucracy knows... there's little or no personal accountability. That is to say that since every action is compartmentalized and delegated, decision makers are all too often, comfortably distant from the human realities of their directives.

[etnlIcarus]

I will assume you are talking about large businesses (ie. let's say, more than 1000 employees and annual revenue exceeding $10 million).I think you need to donate one of those zeros.


Having said that, it's irrelevant anyway.I'd say it's very relevant whether a business is having a positive or negative impact upon people, which, if I'm not mistaken, is the basis of any modern moral dichotomy.


Corporations, like everybody in the world, are trying to make money. I try to make money, and you probably do the same. Businesses are no different, regardless of their size. Businesses aim to maximise profit for the benefit of the business owner or owners - be they individuals, partnerships, families, other business, or public shareholders.This doesn't actually address whether a corporation is, "evil".


People who invest in business have a right to receive a return on their investment.They have no such, "right". Any investment is a calculated risk, fundamentally no different to gambling. Supplemental to this are terms of agreement on how an investment may be used, defined in regulation and optionally contract. You may have some right to define how your money can be used but you by no means have a right to a return, unless otherwise stipulated.


If a business fails to deliver a reasonable return, then it's ineffective and measures need to be taken to increase its effectiveness in making money.

Businesses increase their effectiveness in making money by: making better products or providing better services than competitors, enticing sales by reducing prices, increasing prices to increase profit margin per unit of sale, cutting employee's pay, laying off staff, relocating operations to places where cheaper workers are available, streamlining business processes, buying other businesses, selling off parts of the business, and so on.The, "so on", you failed to mention is a rather big one: if a business is, "ineffective", either in defining or achieving it's goals, it can and often should be liquidated.


Are those things evil?The things you mentioned? No, not at all. Granted, downsizing and 'moving offshore' aren't exactly what come to mind when discussing whether a corporation or business are, "evil".


Sometimes they seem unfair. When I got laid off I felt hard done by, but regardless of my personal feelings, it's the result of a business' need to survive.No such need exists.


If my employer didn't take such hard measures, it might have collapsed entirely, leaving over a thousand employees jobless and tens of thousands of customers short-changed. Which is the greater evil?What evil? You went to all that effort to place business outside the scope of moral definitions, yet you suddenly fall back on the dichotomy your sought to expunge in closing.


Evil and good are not black and white. Nor can everything be divided between the two. Many things are neither evil or good.To rephrase the thread question in slightly less inept terms: this discussion is over whether businesses are inherently moral, immoral, or, amoral. The problem isn't that these definitions aren't applicable to free-market economics; the problem is that they aren't applicable at the macroscopic level.

A business is no more or less, "inherently evil", than an individual: it, like a person, is a self-serving entity, which can be responsible for evil/destructive/antisocial/malicious acts and/or, good/constructive/social/altruistic ends. Sweeping generalisations may be useless, but a corporate enterprise is by no means precluded from being judged either way, depending upon the broader consideration of their environmental and human impact.



In my personal opinion, current economic thinking encourages more destructive behaviour than good; exceedingly deregulated competitive markets pressure individuals within corporate entities (and corporate entities as a whole) to make decisions which have dire consequences in the market place, for the environment and upon humans at varying demographical scopes. Equally, the labour mentality ("unemployment is bad") and free-market fundamentalism are incompatible with a sustainable and sane model of efficiency, which is non-destructive and does not mandate corporatism beyond it's actual purpose, in serving the greater interest (commonwealth). Making money is not an end unto itself.


There's a movie called Zeitgeist that explains about U. S. corporations. It is a federal law that the interests of the investors (aka money) comes before anything else - before environmental concerns, health & safety conditions, and before social responsibility to a community. That being said, corporations operating under these rules, and I doubt that the U. S. is the only one that has such regulation, are evil. Zappos is ok though.
Do not watch this film if you are easily impressed. Zeitgeist is one of the worst conspiracy theory, "documentaries", I've ever seen. Not only can it not decide what it's subject matter is (Christianity's unoriginal origins, the US gov't supposedly being behind 9/11 and the "5 Jew Bankers", are all touched upon) but it makes sweeping and misleading assertions is never substantiates in droves.

For a decent doco on this subject:

An excellent film on the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa3wyaEe9vE (trailer)

[BobLand]

I'd say politicians get the evil tag. Think about how they lie and cause countless deaths for no reason other then their own agendas.

Look around you. Everything you own, wear, eat, drive, listen to, watch are supplied by corporations. Over 70% of American employment is supplied by corporations.

As with anything, there is misuse and abuse but to say "corporations are evil" without qualification is "evil" in of itself. Seems to me the people that spout this idea are often ultra left wing socialists.

Look at all of the so-called Globalization riots. These people don't have a clue where there money comes from or where it goes. Food, clothing, housing, jobs. All come from corporations...and they condemn them!

bobland

[etnlIcarus]

I'd say politicians get the evil tag. Think about how they lie and cause countless deaths for no reason other then their own agendas.There's two problems with this statement:
Firstly, the political batting record ain't much different to the boardroom's. It's not really saying much to point the finger at someone else who has been behaving just as badly.
Secondly, the distinction between a politician and a CEO is increasingly blurry. If a person hasn't jumped directly between professions, at the very least, the latter paid for the former's campaign and the former has been doing the latter's bidding.


to say "corporations are evil" without qualification is "evil" in of itself.No, it isn't. It may be baseless, presumptuous, misguided or simplistic but it's not evil to express an opinion.


Seems to me the people that spout this idea are often ultra left wing socialists.Please avoid comments like these. You're going to get this thread locked.

And besides that, you're just lowering the level of discourse to name-calling and labelling.

[Depressed Man]

Corporations are not inherently evil. Power is evil since once people tend to get power they will usually do whatever it takes to keep said power. It just happens that if corporations get big enough to hold enough power, they'll do whatever it takes (such as lobbying congressmen who also hold power) to create deals for both of them to keep their power.

[geoken]

IMO, corporations are inherently amoral, that is to say they poses no morals(good or bad). Corporations are essentially autonomous entities legally mandated to act in the financial interests of their stakeholders (laws permitting). It would be safe to compare them to a primitive AI construct.

There are, of course, situations where powerful leaders within the corporation are able to steer it in one direction or the other but absent this, corporations have no moral compass and their evilness or lack there of is simply a matter of luck.

[jwbrase]

Corporations are groups of people. Whether they are inherently evil depends upon whether people are inherently evil. If people are not inherently evil, then it should in theory be possible to form a corporation composed entirely of people who are pure hearted, noble, compassionate, and, all around, not jerks. If people are inherently evil, then every employee of every corporation will be, on some level or other, a jerk. This will tend to make the corporation behave poorly.

[richg]

Many are. They have lawyers who are well paid to get around the law and find out how to get "free money".

Rich

[ice60]

Corporations aren't evil, but some are.

the first i thought of was google. i couldn't care if they blowup :D lol

[jwbrase]

I'd say politicians get the evil tag. Think about how they lie and cause countless deaths for no reason other then their own agendas.

Which is a fairly solid all-around indictment of humanity. Both corporations and politicians manage that splendidly. So do individuals. It's just that most individuals don't have billions of dollars and thousands or millions of minions to make it really, really obvious.



Look around you. Everything you own, wear, eat, drive, listen to, watch are supplied by corporations. Over 70% of American employment is supplied by corporations.

What a corporation, or any other group of people or individual person provides, and how efficient that group or individual is at providing that, does not determine if that group or individual is inherently evil or not.

Corporations also provide those *really* annoying adds that try to make me want something that I don't want or need.



As with anything, there is misuse and abuse but to say "corporations are evil" without qualification is "evil" in of itself. Seems to me the people that spout this idea are often ultra left wing socialists.

Sometimes. They can also be fairly moderate left-wingers. And sometimes something else entirely.

Humans in general tend to be greedy.

Socialism tries to pin the blame for human greed on businesspeople, and to try to turn economic affairs over to the government. The only problem is that this ignores the universality of human greed and forgets that politicians are also greedy. This tends, in the end, to lead to Very Bad Things.

Capitalism, OTOH, recognizes the universality of human greed, and tries to use it. In fact, it does very well at using human greed to create all kinds of productivity and attractive goods and services. I like the "attractive goods and services" part. The problem is that Capitalism is fueled by greed, and thus, in a Capitalistic system, there is alot of incentive to promote greed. I *don't* like this part. Promoting greed is as bad as being naive about it, and also leads to Very Bad Things.

The trick is to find an economic system that recognizes the existence of greed and its universality, but that doesn't try to use or promote it. It may not have the booming "prosperity" of capitalistic systems or the level-handed "fairness" of socialistic systems, but I think it will be a step up from either. The question is putting together an economic system that can do that.

[jwbrase]

Corporations are not inherently evil. Power is evil since once people tend to get power they will usually do whatever it takes to keep said power. It just happens that if corporations get big enough to hold enough power, they'll do whatever it takes (such as lobbying congressmen who also hold power) to create deals for both of them to keep their power.

I wouldn't say power is evil.

Power is a tool. It is neither good nor evil. It takes what one person can do and magnifies it. Thus it is attractive. And it also does a great job of showing the true heart of those who hold it. Power can build up or tear down. The reason that power appears so destructive and evil in human affairs is that the human heart is destructive and evil, and power demonstrates this through the people who manage to climb to the top.

[Depressed Man]

Capitalism, OTOH, recognizes the universality of human greed, and tries to use it. In fact, it does very well at using human greed to create all kinds of productivity and attractive goods and services. I like the "attractive goods an services" part. The problem is that Capitalism is fueled by greed, and thus, in a Capitalistic system, there is alot of incentive to promote greed. I *don't* like this part. Promoting greed is as bad as being naive about it, and also leads to Very Bad Things

The other problem with capitalism is that greed can be linked to power. And soon capitalism no longer exists because once corporations can achieve enough power it'll use its power to lobby the government which will protect the corporation [through laws, and if necessarily military force] thus preventing Capitalism from working. The same would even happen in the Ayn Rand universe (where her belief was that the only thing government should do was defend the country).

There really isn't any system that's suitable for humans. That's why we have an ever changing one.

[Depressed Man]

I wouldn't say power is evil.

Power is a tool. It is neither good nor evil. It takes what one person can do and magnifies it. Thus it is attractive. And it also does a great job of showing the true heart of those who hold it. Power can build up or tear down. The reason that power appears so destructive and evil in human affairs is that the human heart is destructive and evil, and power demonstrates this through the people who manage to climb to the top.

Ah, but then the problem is that the people who are 'good' would never be able to climb to the top because it would mean to sacrifice the principles you hold as 'good' in order to climb the ladder that's controlled by 'evil'. It's like if you had 'good' intentions and wanted to change the USA in a positive way. You would never make it past all the 'evil' people with power to get to the top.

[etnlIcarus]

The trick is to find an economic system that recognizes the existence of greed and its universality, but that doesn't try to use or promote it.This is fine in theory but the reality is humans will always be self-interested to a large degree and it will inevitably dictate their choices. That's not necessarily a bad thing but you have to take the good (emphasis on individual rights and liberties) with the bad (greed, Machiavellianism, power-mongering).

Your idea to basically ignore greed; to create a greed-agnostic system, isn't really much different to traditional socialist thinking: pretend it doesn't exist and hope it goes away. You're very right in that classical economic thinking attempted to use self-interested human attributes to the benefit of the state and commonwealth but as we've seen throughout the 20th century, transmuting 'evil' to do good has lead to the conflation and elevation of both, leaving us with some rather mixed results. Bobland was correct in that capitalism has given us lots of nice 'things' but it's also infected gov't, perverted economic theory, and left us with an unsustainable model of employment, production, regulation and expectation.

I don't really think there's any realistic objective to be achieved out of eschewing greed. We simply need to be more aware of it's influence and better counteract it's corruptive influence. Sadly, I don't think we're going to see much progress in this regard until things completely degenerate and people can no longer ignore the long-term consequences of their short-term gains.

[James_Lochhead]

Corporations aren't evil, but some are.

the first i thought of was google. i couldn't care if they blowup :D lol

Why the Google hate? I have never heard anything very bad about them. They seem much better than the average corporation.

Microsoft on the other hand... I think they should be fined 100% of their profit from now until forever for their anti-competitive practices.

[samjh]

I think you need to donate one of those zeros.I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


I'd say it's very relevant whether a business is having a positive or negative impact upon people, which, if I'm not mistaken, is the basis of any modern moral dichotomy.Please read more carefully. My meaning is clear: ther size of a business is irrelevant because the objective of a business is making money, and that objective cannot be classified as "evil" or "good" in the general sense without specific examination.


This doesn't actually address whether a corporation is, "evil".No, because the OP is talking about corporations in the general sense, as the title clearly suggests. And in my opinion, corporations in general cannot be classified into "evil" or "good".


They have no such, "right". Any investment is a calculated risk, fundamentally no different to gambling. Supplemental to this are terms of agreement on how an investment may be used, defined in regulation and optionally contract. You may have some right to define how your money can be used but you by no means have a right to a return, unless otherwise stipulated.Wrong. Investors have a right to expect competent and proper performance in the management of a business, which leads to profit and eventual return on investment. Investors can sue management if their actions are grossly incompetent or illegal. That is a right. Contracts also grant participants stipulated rights. Academically they may not be "rights", but pragmatically they are.


The, "so on", you failed to mention is a rather big one: if a business is, "ineffective", either in defining or achieving it's goals, it can and often should be liquidated.That is a possibility and happens a lot, but generally steps are taken to improve performance before liquidation happens.


The things you mentioned? No, not at all. Granted, downsizing and 'moving offshore' aren't exactly what come to mind when discussing whether a corporation or business are, "evil".It was a rhetorical question. :p But it is what people think about in the current climate when so many businesses are doing exact those things and people are getting angry at lack of jobs, exploitation of minimum-wage workers, etc.


No such need exists.For itself, it does. For broader society, probably not.


What evil? You went to all that effort to place business outside the scope of moral definitions, yet you suddenly fall back on the dichotomy your sought to expunge in closing.You misunderstand me, yet again. That particular example is specific. My opinion that corporations are neither "evil" or "good" when considered generally (ie. without looking at a particular corporation or specific actions of a particular corporation)!


A business is no more or less, "inherently evil", than an individual: it, like a person, is a self-serving entity, which can be responsible for evil/destructive/antisocial/malicious acts and/or, good/constructive/social/altruistic ends.
Which was exactly what I was saying. ;)

[etnlIcarus]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.1k employees and 10mil annual profit?


Please read more carefully. My meaning is clear Would be clearer in the right paragraph.


No, because the OP is talking about corporations in the general sense, as the title clearly suggests. And in my opinion, corporations in general cannot be classified into "evil" or "good".The body of text I quoted was quite sincerely fluff; it said very little and led to nothing relevant. At most it was a permissive spiel.


They have no such, "right". Any investment is a calculated risk, fundamentally no different to gambling. Supplemental to this are terms of agreement on how an investment may be used, defined in regulation and optionally contract. You may have some right to define how your money can be used but you by no means have a right to a return, unless otherwise stipulated.


Wrong.

...

Investors have a right to expect competent and proper performance in the management of a business, which leads to profit and eventual return on investment. Investors can sue management if their actions are grossly incompetent or illegal. That is a right. Contracts also grant participants stipulated rights. Academically they may not be "rights", but pragmatically they are.
Aside from the fact that you've told me I'm wrong but then go on to repeat what I said, lets compare statements:

People who invest in business have a right to receive a return on their investment.

...

Investors have a right to expect competent and proper performance in the management of a business

...

Academically they may not be "rights", but pragmatically they are.
Apparently you forgot what you were arguing (I could accuse you of spin but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, here).


That is a possibility and happens a lot, but generally steps are taken to improve performance before liquidation happens.Stop and go back: emphasis on, "often should". I was not simply correcting your omission.


But it is what people think about in the current climate when so many businesses are doing exact those things and people are getting angry at lack of jobs, exploitation of minimum-wage workers, etc.Now we're starting to get somewhere. Keep going.


For itself, it does. For broader society, probably not.No distinction between motives actually exists. Corporate charters were not granted with eternal perpetuity in-mind. A corporation is (or at least was) formed to serve a specific purpose.


You misunderstand me, yet again.No, I didn't. You contradicted yourself.


That particular example is specific.Redundant statement is redundant. :P


My opinion that corporations are neither "evil" or "good" when considered generally (ie. without looking at a particular corporation or specific actions of a particular corporation)!
This statement doesn't make sense. Your original statement was as follows:


Are those things evil? Sometimes they seem unfair. When I got laid off I felt hard done by, but regardless of my personal feelings, it's the result of a business' need to survive. If my employer didn't take such hard measures, it might have collapsed entirely, leaving over a thousand employees jobless and tens of thousands of customers short-changed. Which is the greater evil?
To distil these statements into their primitives:
- business may seem evil but is not
- example
- business is a choice between the lesser of two evils


Which was exactly what I was saying. ;)I get the feeling we probably do agree on these issues broadly. I'm mainly taking objection to your permissive attitude and acceptance of revisionist economic notions.

[Mason Whitaker]

Corporations? No
Corporatism? Yes

Corporatism is when corporations have so much money and influence, that they can simply sway the government and can do whatever they want.

[samjh]

I get the feeling we probably do agree on these issues broadly. I'm mainly taking objection to your permissive attitude and acceptance of revisionist economic notions.

It seems we are approaching this from two different angles.

You talk like an economist, which I'm not. I'm an engineer and lawyer by training.

I think we do agree at a level, also.

[etnlIcarus]

You talk like an economistPretty certain I don't (and I'm certainly not an economist).

I'm an engineer and lawyer by trainingYou lost your job as an engineer? I know engineering students who had jobs lined up months before finishing uni. I was under the impression there was a nation-wide shortage of people with your skills?

(not prying, just curious).

[ZarathustraDK]

It really depends on the corp, I'd say.

Usually you could say that money and delivering what the consumers want go hand in hand. However I do see some corps (let's not mention any names ;) ) who pay more attention to their stockholders than their consumers, or try to gain undeserved advantages by affecting national policy with lobbying instead of innovating.

IMO lobbying is just a synonym for bribe. It doesn't accoplish anything else than making the rich richer and destroying the rational discourse upon which important decisions should be made.

[jwbrase]

This is fine in theory but the reality is humans will always be self-interested to a large degree and it will inevitably dictate their choices.

And the trick is to find a system that combats this tendency.


That's not necessarily a bad thing but you have to take the good (emphasis on individual rights and liberties) with the bad (greed, Machiavellianism, power-mongering).

Your idea to basically ignore greed; to create a greed-agnostic system, isn't really much different to traditional socialist thinking: pretend it doesn't exist and hope it goes away.

My idea is to find a system that recognizes and combats greed, rather than ignoring it or passing it off as only something ones enemies do, as in socialism, or encouraging it, as in capitalism.

The problem is that all I have is an ideal. I have a picture of how the system should work in broad terms, but no clue how (or if) such a system could be implemented. (One thing that may need to be taken into consideration is that such a system may well not be implementable strictly as an economic system. It may have other elements as well).

Also, there's the problem that even if you did design and implement such a system, I'm sure people would waste no time finding new ways to screw each other over.

[etnlIcarus]

My idea is to find a system that recognizes and combats greedThat's even worse. You're starting to scare me.
may well not be implementable strictly as an economic system. It may have other elements as wellGetting scarier. :P

And it's not really the case that a regulated capitalistic system has to encourage self-serving behaviour - it just has to exploit it, while keeping such behaviour in-check. It's balancing that conflict of interest which seems to be our main problem.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

I normally don't reply to threads where pages and pages of long discussions have taken place. But I just figured I'd chime in with something. The OP asked whether corporations are inherently evil. But from what I've skimmed through before posting it seems as though everyone is under the false assumption that the corporation is a free market phenomenon.

A corporation is a writ of government granted privilege. The person(s) who wish to incorporate their business ask the government for certain legal privileges such as corporate personhood which the government provides in exchange for greater control over the business such as increased regulation of the business's activities and higher rates of taxation on the business's transactions.

Corporate personhood is when the government creates a legal fiction in which the people who make up a corporation are free to act without being held personally liable for their actions. Or at least not held fully liable.

For example: If the owner of a sole proprietorship or the owners of a partnership ran up huge business debts they must either personally pay back the money to their creditors or declare personal bankruptcy. Which would count strongly against their personal credit ratings.

But if the owners (the CEO and board of directors) of a corporation ran up huge business debts and run their corporation into the ground their creditors can't come after any of their personal assets in order to get back their money as they could with the sole proprietorship or partnership. Because they are protected from the consequences of their actions through the legal fiction of corporate personhood. The corporate owners could simply declare corporate bankruptcy and walk away to start up another corporation with their personal credit ratings intact as if nothing had happened.

So in answer to the OP's question corporations aren't necessarily good or evil. But the fact that corporations are entities through which people are allowed by government mandate to make decisions without also accepting the full risk that comes from those decisions should be a cause for concern. Imagine what you might do in your personal life if you were allowed to make decisions without also having to fully accept the negative consequences those decisions might cause.

[toupeiro]

I don't believe companies like Canonical are evil. There are a few non-profit corporations which I believe are certainly not inherently evil, even if their attempts to help aren't always .. seen all the way through..

Contrary to some beliefs, I believe there are some tech companies, for profit, that are not inherently evil. I do not believe Sun is inherently evil. Have they done some things wrong in the past? yes, they have. But, they reshape themselves and address their shortcomings.

[bp1509]

d

[bp1509]

d

[Copernicus1234]

When I got laid off I felt hard done by, but regardless of my personal feelings, it's the result of a business' need to survive. If my employer didn't take such hard measures, it might have collapsed entirely, leaving over a thousand employees jobless and tens of thousands of customers short-changed. Which is the greater evil?


Or they just wanted to maximize their profits even more, which I think is much more common. They want to get by with as few people as possible so they can make as much money as possible. Its not evil, but its very unfair when the CEO gets millions while hundreds of employees have to leave.

Its capitalism. People step on eachother to get ahead. Competition over money and power. I dont like it one bit, but as long as money matters as much as it does, it will continue like this.

And the alternatives are probably worse. Communism had a good idea behind it, but it was misused to a even greater extent than capitalism is.

[sanderella]

Not evil in themselves, but they are open to being exploited by cliques, psychopaths, criminals and other unprincipled people. All businesses must have financial audits, it would be good if people in high places could be audited morally. However, intelligent criminals will always learn to exploit the system for their own ends.

[toupeiro]

There's a huge difference between a privately owned company such as Canonical, and a publicly traded company such as RedHat or Microsoft. The financial pressures exerted by the share holders can make for some very different approaches to how to profit and interact with the stakeholders (employees, consumers, environment, etc..)

No argument from me on that point.. Also, which is primarily why I threw a company out there which is publicly traded like Sun (JAVA)

[tsali]

Businessmen are the one group that distinguishes capitalism and the American way of life from the totalitarian statism that is swallowing the rest of the world. All the other social groups- workers, farmers, professional men, scientists, soldiers- exist under dictatorships, even though they exist in chains, in terror, in misery, and in progressive self-destruction. But there is no such group as businessmen under a dictatorship. Their place is taken by armed thugs: by bureaucrats and commissars. Businessmen are the symbol of a free society- the symbol of America.


- Ayn Rand, Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal

[click4851]

I can't subscibe a behavior to a company....companies don't behave, their representatives do; companies don't learn anything, there representatives do. Companies aren't resposnible for anything their representatives.

[etnlIcarus]

But from what I've skimmed through before posting it seems as though everyone is under the false assumption that the corporation is a free market phenomenon.Not a free-market phenomenon; just one that has been drastically re-purposed in modern economic practice.


a corporation can't be good, evil, etc.. it doesn't love, it doesn't hateI believe we're dealing with pragmatic notions of good and evil; not romantic ones. Not being able to ascribe emotions to a business doesn't really mean much.


Communism had a good idea behind it, but it was misused to a even greater extent than capitalism is.Communism had good ideals but it was far from being a realistic economic endeavour. It's perhaps being a bit forgiving to excuse socialism's failings as simply, "misuse". Beyond leader cults and dictatorships, economically, socialism never found a workable model (at least not one that could co-exist with other economic theories on a competitive level).



- Ayn Rand, Capitalism, The Unknown IdealThat quote was really only vaguely relevant to the thread question. And as a personal note, I'm glad Ayn Rand doesn't represent mainstream thought on these matters. :-s

[tsali]

That quote was really only vaguely relevant to the thread question. And as a personal note, I'm glad Ayn Rand doesn't represent mainstream thought on these matters. :-s

It is quite relevant in that it supports the notion of corporate business as a GOOD thing.

Also, you might be surprised to learn how much more mainstream Rand's thoughts are becoming as free people become more and more oppressed by governments seeking to redistribute the hard fought fruits of their labor to those less willing to work.

Personally, I think she's right. "Forced altruism" will eventually lead to a form of economic entropy where none wants to innovate or work to make the world better...because their is no motivation to do so.

[Lateforgym]

I work with US businesses of all sizes and legal formations. The concept of "corporation" is an escapist cop-out used in US political discussion so that one need not confront an opposing view point and risk not getting invited to the next cocktail party.

I have seen just as many sole ownership businesses stiff the world around it as I have multiple owners international conglomerates.

This is a human issue, nothing else.

However, most can understand why an ignorant person, with a certain political lean, would much rather take the low road and blame a faceless corporate giant instead of asking their dumb next door neighbor how they feel about screwing up the US economy by taking out a piggyback loan when they most likely wouldnt be able to pay for it one the loan resets.

Lets face it its a lot easier to blame someone on Wall Street then spend hours studying whats really going one. Heck, mainstream US journalists dont even do that.

Its a lot easier to blame faceless giant because it makes you think your fighting something and makes you feel good about yourself, while not having to physically confront your neighbor driving a 1971 Whichimacallit and polluting the earth.

My point is this, stop blaming corporations and start putting your finger in the face of your next door neighbor. I think we have all had enough with the separation of corporation and humanity. Its YOUR 104K that supports corporations, so you can no longer act as if you are seperate from the mess.

[etnlIcarus]

It is quite relevant in that it supports the notion of corporate business as a GOOD thing.Um... no, it doesn't:

Businessmen are the one group that distinguishes capitalism and the American way of life

...

Businessmen are the symbol of a free society- the symbol of America.
And besides that, you've responded to an ethical concern rooted in tangible issues (admittedly not well defined) with broad ideological assertions. 'Corporations are a symbol of freedom' says absolutely nothing about what a corporation actually is. There's a big difference between reality and ideology and your use of that purely ideological quote could easily be taken as nothing more than an ends justifies the means rationalisation. I hope I'm wrong but considering you're resourcing Rand, who condemns statist disregard for the individual in one breath, while saying she's quite alright with people starving in the streets in the next, I don't hold out a lot of hope.

As for your, "economic entropy", statement: to reach your maximum entropy would require a radically socialised system, which I'm pretty sure few people are actually proposing. It's a bit of a strawman.


none wants to ... work to make the world better...because their is no motivation to do so...I'll leave you to mull over the logic of your own statement, there. :P Even if you don't interpret that statement in it's most ironic form, making the world better has always been a motivation unto itself, regardless of Rand's pigeon-holed characterisation of the human species.


@ Lateforgym: dude, that's one hell of a rant. I seriously suggest trying to calm down a bit and order your thoughts a bit better. No one in this thread has even mentioned the current economic crisis as an example of 'corporate evilness' (and I'd hope we can avoid that tangent) so I'm not sure who you're directing your anger at.

[SunnyRabbiera]

These days I give a resounding "yes"
The big companies in this world are filled with corruption and give us the common folk nothing but grief.
I think good examples of Evil companies or at least very corrupt companies are the telecoms such as Comcast, Verizon, ATT
And to a big part Microsoft.
Companies like comcast who I have dealt with treat customers like crap, charge a large amount of money for crap service, and seem to do little to improve themselves in the process.
I pay $200 for Phone, Cable and Internet, Phone okay fine as its a better service then when I had Verizon, but Cable and internet eh...
Internet is soso, I mean its consistent but once every week I have to reset the connection it seems.
Cable is worst, they charge too much for it and there isnt anything worth watching!
Microsoft I see as a very corrupt company, suing competition and domineering over all...

[fatality_uk]

Me and my friend are split on this one. I think they are, because they are only after the bottom line and don't care how they make money, whereas he believes they are trying to advance society and have proper morals.

What are your thoughts on this? (Sorry about the short first post btw)

No. A coropration is an entity consisting of people and as such, a corporation can not, inherently be evil. The people behind the organisation can be, but wouldn't likely be in the organisation too long.

Other than a government body, if you can name an "evil" corporation, who's intent and act is evil, I would be very surprised.

Think about the fact that you are writing your question on a device created by a corporation, and using an internet service provider, another corporation and posting to a Canonical related forum, another corporation!

[etnlIcarus]

A coropration is an entity consisting of people and as such, a corporation can not, inherently be evil.While I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with with anyone in particular, here, there appears to be a non-sequitur (or at least a gap) in your reasoning. Why can't an 'entity consisting of people' be evil by design? You don't explain this, you simply assert it.


The people behind the organisation can be, but wouldn't likely be in the organisation too longPerhaps is we were talking about cartoonish evil-doing. **** Dastardly would be collecting unemployment by the end of the week. What may be in the interest of a company is not necessarily in the broader interest of society. If this is the case, "evil", people may find themselves promoted, rather than fired.

[fatality_uk]

Saying a corporation is evil is similar to saying a slice of bread can be evil. It is meaningless! I have owned and worked for corporations, as most people here have, all my life.

Those stating that corporations are "evil" usually don't have direct experience of working for, or being in a position of directing a commercial organisation.

People can be evil, but due to the usual rules of corporate governance, a person like this would not usually be in a position of authority.

[etnlIcarus]

Saying a corporation is evil is similar to saying a slice of bread can be evil. It is meaningless!I think you should go back and look earlier in this thread. There was a bit of a semantic meta-argument where, "evil", is better defined in the context of this discussion.

More to the point, though, while it's of most use to apply moral judgements to people, there's nothing to suggest that the same judgements cannot also be made of human creations. Legal and social paradigms like corporate business models are very much within this scope: we created 'the corporation' with the intent of serving a purpose and regulated it to a degree which results in business having a very real-world impact upon people. It is a valid question to ask whether we created a Frankenstein-esque monster. I don't personally agree that it is in general or has to be a monster but the question itself is one worth answering.

[Thelasko]

I'll bite at this topic.

I had this same discussion a while ago. We decided that public corporations are evil and private ones are not. This is because corporations have only one goal, "increase shareholder wealth." This goal does not always work in the best interest of the employees, the customers, or even the corporation itself. Many corporations will make short term decisions based on the concept that it will increase the value of the corporation's stocks. Occasionally, decisions that make stock valuation high in the short term, make the corporation go out of business in the long term. Corporations that value long term stock valuation over short term tend to be less evil than those that don't.

The least evil corporation is the one that is privately owned. A privately owned corporation is most likely to still be owned by its founder, who started the company out of some intrinsic motivation. This basic love for the work/product is usually what makes the difference between a good corporation and a bad. Those people who are in business with no other purpose other than making money, are those most likely to do evil.