- Status
I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions.
Not the actions of something they may not have had any control of.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It’s your definition of “morality” that’s changing – you seem to be defining it as something changeable, with no permanent footing.
Morality doesn’t change like that – God establishes right and wrong, and He doesn’t change it.
Now, people may conform to God’s standards today, and not tomorrow – but that’s behavior that changes, not morality.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Looks to me that someone is equating a corporation with a person.
This is not the case, and it would be a mistake to apply traits to the corporation as though it was a person.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Looks to me like someone is denying either the humanity or the responsibility of the people who run the corporations.
The BOD rRunning a corporation does not mean the corporation is the BOD.
While considering all your points though, I had a good laugh at something interesting…
How insulting it must be to all of these hard working individuals that their Good deeds are not attributed them, but are instead handed over to the corporation.
While considering all your points though, I had a good laugh at something interesting…
How insulting it must be to all of these hard working individuals that their Good deeds are not attributed them, but are instead handed over to the corporation.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
But the BOD running a corporation does mean the BOD runs the corporation.
What irony!!While considering all your points though, I had a good laugh at something interesting…
How insulting it must be to all of these hard working individuals that their Good deeds are not attributed them, but are instead handed over to the corporation.
You are the one who has been saying, “It’s the corporation, not the people in the corporation.” You are the one depriving all those hard-working individuals of the credit for their good deeds.
When a corporation does good or ill, I say the credit (or blame) goes to the people in the corporation who made the decisions and carried them out.
And not the corporation??
T
Ted_in_Charlott
Guest
Why hasn’t anyone criticised the doctors for charging too much?
Walmart and Target ought to exchange logos because Walmart is always the target.
But seriously folks…Walmart has everyright to do anything they want including:
Resell donated toys: snopes.com/holidays/christmas/walmart.asp
Partner with GL groups:
snopes.com/politics/sexuality/walmart.asp
And:
Sell flip-flops that cause chemical burns:
snopes.com/medical/toxins/flipflop.asp
What is my point in pointing out the above? Walmart has an economy greater than most nations. It is fun for more people to blaim, Walmart does more transactions. Laws of probablities say you are going to screw up if you have more chances. That’'s why you have layer after layer of management, to try to minimize bad/immoral/illegal transactions. Sometimes upper management doesn’t know something until it has gone too far then they have to react to bad decisions by lower management.
All this coupled with high doctor cost, high insurance cost, high legal costs, the world’s largest retailer, a brain damaged woman and people on both sides of the issue make for great debate.
But where does it affect us? Is Wal-mart good for the US economy? Do they hire the unemployable? Do they give us value? Are they convienent to go to? Are they moral? Do they ultimately try to do the right thing and add to their communities? Are they just another Enron? Do they pay their employees fair wages? Do they pay their suppliers for their goods/services? Do they run other companies out of business?
If you do good and sometimes you screw-up does that negate the good you do? If you do a very immoral thing and later correct it does that make all the good you do bad?
Walmart and Target ought to exchange logos because Walmart is always the target.
But seriously folks…Walmart has everyright to do anything they want including:
Resell donated toys: snopes.com/holidays/christmas/walmart.asp
Partner with GL groups:
snopes.com/politics/sexuality/walmart.asp
And:
Sell flip-flops that cause chemical burns:
snopes.com/medical/toxins/flipflop.asp
What is my point in pointing out the above? Walmart has an economy greater than most nations. It is fun for more people to blaim, Walmart does more transactions. Laws of probablities say you are going to screw up if you have more chances. That’'s why you have layer after layer of management, to try to minimize bad/immoral/illegal transactions. Sometimes upper management doesn’t know something until it has gone too far then they have to react to bad decisions by lower management.
All this coupled with high doctor cost, high insurance cost, high legal costs, the world’s largest retailer, a brain damaged woman and people on both sides of the issue make for great debate.
But where does it affect us? Is Wal-mart good for the US economy? Do they hire the unemployable? Do they give us value? Are they convienent to go to? Are they moral? Do they ultimately try to do the right thing and add to their communities? Are they just another Enron? Do they pay their employees fair wages? Do they pay their suppliers for their goods/services? Do they run other companies out of business?
If you do good and sometimes you screw-up does that negate the good you do? If you do a very immoral thing and later correct it does that make all the good you do bad?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Unless you claim buildings and trucks are running the corporation – because that’s all you have left when you take out the people.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
R
rpp
Guest
If it is not the corp that makes the decsions, then how can you say that the corp has a morality at all?
Morality is based on the decisions we make. If there is no decision, there can be no morality.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
We don’t say the corporation has a morality – except in the sense we use the corporation as shorthand for the people who make it up.
For example, we say “The White House said” when we really mean the President or one of his spokesmen said such and such. We often say “the Vatican” or “Rome” when we really mean the Pope and curia.
But we know the White House cannot speak, and neither the Vatican nor Rome actually say or do what the Pope or Curia say.
And the morality or lack thereof is assigned to the people who make the decision and those who carry them out.
When the people running a corporation routinely make good or bad decisions, for shorthand, we ascribe that to the corporation – but we shouldn’t forget it’s people who do whatever is done.
Everytime I have tried to draw a distinction between the people and the tool, I have been shot down.
Now we are trying to use ‘corporation’ as another word for the people in it??
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Your problem was you tried to ascribe action to the tool, not to the people using it.
Sometimes people use names like that as shorthand – they say “Washington” when they mean “The people who run the government.”
But it isn’t the city that raises your taxes, it’s the Congress.
Well…
Let’s see.
We have a tool here that is capable of making decisions and acting upon those decisions.
We have a BOD that can in a limited fashion control the tool.
And we have the employees of the tool.
So when you make the claim that Wal Mart is altruistic, who gets the credit?
Let’s see.
We have a tool here that is capable of making decisions and acting upon those decisions.
We have a BOD that can in a limited fashion control the tool.
And we have the employees of the tool.
So when you make the claim that Wal Mart is altruistic, who gets the credit?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No, we do not have a tool that is “capable of making decisions and acting on those decisions.”
We have people who are capable of making decisions and acting on those decisions.
The people who make and act on the decisions, of course!
- Status