I guess they're “distributing” something, but I don't think it's really that valuable. I guess it means some folks can pay their rent, so that makes it morally and ethically okay!
If you make generic judgement about better/worse — you can't take only one of many sides of the story.
Every human being produces a lot of waste - natural and synthetic.
Does it make every human being morally and ethically bad?
I follow the same logic that you implied in your comment.
If you're going to solve for example plastic problem — would you need money and other resources for it? Where those money gonna come from if not from the biggest taxpayers?
Shutting down plastic producing companies is not a solution because — you solve plastic (and maybe few more) problem, but you A. reduce the quality of life B. yes, increase unemployment C. reduce wealth and money that could be invested in solving more problems than originally created.
Therefore it is extremely stupid to call a company generally "bad" just based on some environment related variable and ignoring thousands of others.
Don't you see how complex and fragile this good/evil balance is?
Comments
Here's a list of the Top 20 Global Polluters:
https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/new...
I don't know how much they're making the world better (cranks up the AC).
And here's an article about (slurps coca-cola) the biggest plastic polluters, who in 2021 were named as such four years running.
https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/2021/10/25/the-coca-col...
I guess they're “distributing” something, but I don't think it's really that valuable. I guess it means some folks can pay their rent, so that makes it morally and ethically okay!
If you make generic judgement about better/worse — you can't take only one of many sides of the story.
Every human being produces a lot of waste - natural and synthetic.
Does it make every human being morally and ethically bad?
I follow the same logic that you implied in your comment.
If you're going to solve for example plastic problem — would you need money and other resources for it? Where those money gonna come from if not from the biggest taxpayers?
Shutting down plastic producing companies is not a solution because — you solve plastic (and maybe few more) problem, but you A. reduce the quality of life B. yes, increase unemployment C. reduce wealth and money that could be invested in solving more problems than originally created.
Therefore it is extremely stupid to call a company generally "bad" just based on some environment related variable and ignoring thousands of others.
Don't you see how complex and fragile this good/evil balance is?