> Furthermore, a profit-seeking corporation shouldn't really be on the moral scale to begin with. At best, they should be amoral, that is, not involved at all in morality. Their primary goal is, and should be, to earn more money, not to be good citizens of the world.
You are very much mistaken. Society provides the corporation with legal protections and recourses as a fictive person with the understanding that the corporation's existence betters the society, betters the people within it. When this agreement is breached, the society can--though, unfortunately, rarely does, due to globally weird veneration of toxic behavior as "just business"--destroy it. (It has happened before. It should happen more often.)
And let's be really real for a sec: if you look at the stretch of history, neutrality is effectively tacit support for bad behavior. And from a practical perspective, a call for "amorality" is tacit support for immorality.
Comments
> Furthermore, a profit-seeking corporation shouldn't really be on the moral scale to begin with. At best, they should be amoral, that is, not involved at all in morality. Their primary goal is, and should be, to earn more money, not to be good citizens of the world.
You are very much mistaken. Society provides the corporation with legal protections and recourses as a fictive person with the understanding that the corporation's existence betters the society, betters the people within it. When this agreement is breached, the society can--though, unfortunately, rarely does, due to globally weird veneration of toxic behavior as "just business"--destroy it. (It has happened before. It should happen more often.)
And let's be really real for a sec: if you look at the stretch of history, neutrality is effectively tacit support for bad behavior. And from a practical perspective, a call for "amorality" is tacit support for immorality.