The amorality of badness

[boxy]

Even in the corporate setting, some people provide the capital, some the business plan, and others the labour. It is still a collective of individuals, working towards a mutually beneficial goal, within an agreed upon moral framework. Taking a sickie (without being sick) is a breach of your agreement... not a big one, and maybe you're fine with being a little bit naughty.

Share holders provide the capital. Representatives contracted by the corporation provide the business plan. Representatives contracted by the corporation provide the labour. Providing the business plan by the way... is of itself labour also... intellectual labour. The business plan of a corporation always has the same goal once that which it has been incorporated to achieve has been achieved... and that universal goal is to get bigger.

Those contracted to ensure the corporation get bigger are not necessarily beneficent of that goal... indeed they can suffer for it and our current global climate is an example of the kind of suffering that humans must endure as a result of a failed attempt by the corporation at getting bigger.

Indeed the whole idea of perpetual growth which is the primary goal of a corporation once it has achieved that which it has been incorporated to achieve is logically flawed. Nothing can grow perpetually.

There is no agreed upon moral framework, rather there are contractual obligations. The corporation seeks loopholes in that contractual obligation and quite commonly will abuse contractual obligations... but by your reasoning boxy... a human contracted to that corporation must not act as the corporation would act?

By my reasoning, the stakeholders/shareholders of a corporation are morally responsible for the actions of that corporation. Corporations are simply bodies owned and run by humans. So, it's morally bad to take the dividends gained by immoral practises.

Where did I say otherwise?

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

No. My intent can be equally violent when seeking to smash the bejesus out of something. If it is a human, then the action is amoral, but what if it is a rock?

Therefore, first, it must be know what has been acted upon.

Let's take the example of a stone wall in a public space.

You want to spray paint on it.

It can either be morally good, bad or indifferent, depending upon your intent.

Good - you paint it with the intention of enhancing it's appeal for yourself and others.
Indifferent - you add your own graffiti to please yourself without making it worse for others.
Bad - you scrawl paint on it to simply mark your territory, with the full knowledge that it is ugly and annoying to the great majority of your fellow citizens.

What you are acting upon has less affect on the morality of an action, than who the stakeholders are, and how your actions affect their respective rights.

You are confusing the action (painting the wall) with what is being acted upon (in all outcomes you identify it is humanity).

Because it is humanity that is being acted upon... the intent of the action comes into play. Intent is the second consideration of morality only after it has been found that a sentient being is to be affected by the action.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

By my reasoning, the stakeholders/shareholders of a corporation are morally responsible for the actions of that corporation. Corporations are simply bodies owned and run by humans. So, it's morally bad to take the dividends gained by immoral practises.

Where did I say otherwise?

Wrong Boxy. Human beings take full liability for their actions, whereas corporations have only limited liability.

[boxy]

By my reasoning, the stakeholders/shareholders of a corporation are morally responsible for the actions of that corporation. Corporations are simply bodies owned and run by humans. So, it's morally bad to take the dividends gained by immoral practises.

Where did I say otherwise?

Wrong Boxy. Human beings take full liability for their actions, whereas corporations have only limited liability.

We're talking morality here, not legality.

[boxy]

No. My intent can be equally violent when seeking to smash the bejesus out of something. If it is a human, then the action is amoral, but what if it is a rock?

Therefore, first, it must be know what has been acted upon.

Let's take the example of a stone wall in a public space.

You want to spray paint on it.

It can either be morally good, bad or indifferent, depending upon your intent.

Good - you paint it with the intention of enhancing it's appeal for yourself and others.
Indifferent - you add your own graffiti to please yourself without making it worse for others.
Bad - you scrawl paint on it to simply mark your territory, with the full knowledge that it is ugly and annoying to the great majority of your fellow citizens.

What you are acting upon has less affect on the morality of an action, than who the stakeholders are, and how your actions affect their respective rights.

You are confusing the action (painting the wall) with what is being acted upon (in all outcomes you identify it is humanity).

Because it is humanity that is being acted upon... the intent of the action comes into play. Intent is the second consideration of morality only after it has been found that a sentient being is to be affected by the action.

Just as long as we agree that how it affects others in society is more important than what the thing is...

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

By my reasoning, the stakeholders/shareholders of a corporation are morally responsible for the actions of that corporation. Corporations are simply bodies owned and run by humans. So, it's morally bad to take the dividends gained by immoral practises.

Where did I say otherwise?

Wrong Boxy. Human beings take full liability for their actions, whereas corporations have only limited liability.

We're talking morality here, not legality.

Exactly... and that which has a limited liability is not morally accountable unless it can be shown that at least one human acted with full intent to cause harm to another or other sentient beings... and that is rarely the case with corporations.... but can happen and the Madoff Ponzi scheme is an example of that... but, then again, it was not the corporation that was held accountable it was the person.

To put it more simply... Corporations are legal entities, not moral entities.

[boxy]

Yes, but in "stealing" from that entity (in effect what a sickie is), you are acting against the interests of other members of your society. Corporations are not members of society, they are ways in which we organise our cooperative efforts.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Yes, but in "stealing" from that entity (in effect what a sickie is), you are acting against the interests of other members of your society.

How so Boxy?

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Meanwhile... although I have been arguing against the concept of corporations being moral entities, there is a finer point to be made here that speaks to Ethics rather than Morality.

Ethics represent the Values of Society, whereas Morality represents the behaviour needed to achieve those values. So whilst I contend that Corporations are not moral entities... they are Ethical entities imparting values which society, if brainwashed often enough will adhere to... unthinkingly even.

On the matter of lies... morality tells us that we should not lie... yet Corporate Ethics says we should value lies because they can deliver the the bigness which is their primary goal. So maybe it is our morality that is all screwed up.

Check out this video to appreciate the finer point being addressed here. Heck... just check it out because it has the giggle factor.

http://vimeo.com/34813864

[mellie]

So your vote will go to the Amorality of Badness Party (ABP) then?

Ps- Youtubes parent is Google which is a general corporation, so I can see why you have had a change of heart, re- the Buffalo bill clip.