Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

[vern_humphrey]

Oh make up your mind.
Either the computer makes unexpected decisions based upon the rules outlined by the programmer, or it does not.
You can’t have it both ways.

The credentials you tout tell me that you should know better then that.

A computer is designed to decide.
The programmer does not plug through every possible decision and tell it what to do in every instance. He builds rules and lets the machine decide based upon the rules.
All too often, BSOD’s or worse result when the programmer loses track of rules overlapping other rules.

But this strays from the topic. I have shown a tool that makes decisions. And that was all that was necessary.

Computers are designed to assist humans in making decisions. I know of no corporation that has a computer system without a man-in-the-loop and no method of over-riding it.

 

[vz71]

Computers are designed to assist humans in making decisions. I know of no corporation that has a computer system without a man-in-the-loop and no method of over-riding it.

Well I am not saying that a computer is at the helm.

What I am saying is that people are removed from the decisions that are made. Not all, but many.

Think about it this way…
Every little department is making their own rules.
At some point the various departments rules must interact with the other departments.
I am sure you have heard the phrase concerning one hand not knowing what the other is doing…
So now we have a company, with all of these rules interacting.
Which person do you suppose actually planned for and decided upon the moves that this will generate?

The result is a completely amoral system.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Oh make up your mind.
Either the computer makes unexpected decisions based upon the rules outlined by the programmer, or it does not.
You can’t have it both ways.

The credentials you tout tell me that you should know better then that.

A computer is designed to decide.
The programmer does not plug through every possible decision and tell it what to do in every instance. He builds rules and lets the machine decide based upon the rules.
All too often, BSOD’s or worse result when the programmer loses track of rules overlapping other rules.

Those rules you speak of are the multiple decisions that a programmer programs into a computer. A computer can not make any “decisions” that were not anticipated by the programmer. What you have said is exactly what I said but using different words.

But this strays from the topic. I have shown a tool that makes decisions. And that was all that was necessary.

You have not done so. A tool can make no decisions without a human already deciding what will happen before hand.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well I am not saying that a computer is at the helm.

What I am saying is that people are removed from the decisions that are made. Not all, but many.

Those two sentences are contradictory.

Think about it this way…
Every little department is making their own rules.
At some point the various departments rules must interact with the other departments.
I am sure you have heard the phrase concerning one hand not knowing what the other is doing…
So now we have a company, with all of these rules interacting.
Which person do you suppose actually planned for and decided upon the moves that this will generate?

The result is a completely amoral system.

So all businesses are completely amoral? No business has any moralty at all?

Isn’t the Church a complex organization? Wouldn’t the Church be under the same constraints? Would you then say the Church is amoral?

You are wrong, of course. Businesses and the Church do have compassion and altruism. Some businesses may be downright evil – as some religions may be – but not all businesses and churches are.

 

[vz71]

So all businesses are completely amoral? No business has any moralty at all?

All corporations are amoral.

It is an artificial citizen built for the sole purpose of making a profit for the shareholders.

 

[vz71]

A tool can make no decisions without a human already deciding what will happen before hand.

Right. So every problem, every BSOD produced on my computer was decided upon in advance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

All corporations are amoral.

It is an artificial citizen built for the sole purpose of making a profit for the shareholders.

Is the Church – which is a corporation – amoral?

 

[vz71]

Is the Church – which is a corporation – amoral?

If you really wish to make a business out of the church, I would suggest sole-proprietorship is the best analogy.
However I find making the church nothing more then a business a reprehensible idea. Why do you have such disrespect for God’s church?

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you really wish to make a business out of the church, I would suggest sole-proprietorship is the best analogy.
However I find making the church nothing more then a business a reprehensible idea. Why do you have such disrespect for God’s church?

Nice try, but no cigar.

The Church is a corporation. It has all those things corporations have, from rules to a hierarchy. When you say corporations are immoral, you are the one showing disrespect for God’s church, as well as neglecting your Catholic duty to extend charity to all.

There are moral corporations, there are amoral corporations, and there are corporations that fall inbetween. The status of being a corporation has nothing to do with the morality or lack there of.

 

[vz71]

Nice try, but no cigar.

The Church is a corporation. It has all those things corporations have, from rules to a hierarchy.

Except for the one thing that truly defines the corporations (like Wal Mart).
The church is directly led by God.
God makes its rules.

There is no such head on Wal Mart. And by extension, no heart.
The corporation cannot be moral, or evil. Any more then a tool can be.

Other business models have some central head that makes the decisions and can overide any rule. This head also gives it some measure of morality. Well, at least it is as moral as the one that runs it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

All corporations are amoral.

It is an artificial citizen built for the sole purpose of making a profit for the shareholders.

Not the whole truth as not all corporations are public in nature. Some are even non-profit enterprises.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Except for the one thing that truly defines the corporations (like Wal Mart).
The church is directly led by God.
God makes its rules.

Then Peter was not the Vicar of Christ on Earth?

Christ was God, Peter was a man – as all Popes since. While they participate in the Kharisma of Infallibility, that doesn’t extend to the bureaucratic rules the Church must have.

A good example was the Sex Scandal. Did God tell the Bishops to hush up sexuat predation by priests, then quietly ship those priests off to other parishes, where they found new hunting grounds?

There is no such head on Wal Mart. And by extension, no heart.
The corporation cannot be moral, or evil. Any more then a tool can be.

The corporation is run by men. Men may be moral, amoral, or immoral.

Other business models have some central head that makes the decisions and can overide any rule. This head also gives it some measure of morality. Well, at least it is as moral as the one that runs it.

Which is exactly the case with a corporation!

 

[vz71]

The corporation is run by men. Men may be moral, amoral, or immoral.

Correct. Plural - men.

Not “A man.” singular.

And it is that difference that a draw the line.
Whenever you divide up authority among a group, you reduce their culpability into any action taken by the corp, and thus strip it of morality.

A business can only be considered as moral as the one running it. So what of the business that has no ONE.
A group vote does not represent the morality of any single voter…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Correct. Plural - men.

Not “A man.” singular.

And it is that difference that a draw the line.
Whenever you divide up authority among a group, you reduce their culpability into any action taken by the corp, and thus strip it of morality.

So the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is a group, and which makes decisions and takes actions is stripped of morality.

A business can only be considered as moral as the one running it. So what of the business that has no ONE.
A group vote does not represent the morality of any single voter…

A business takes the characteristics and values of the men who run it. If they are moral, the business will be moral.

You’re tying yourself in knots in order to condemn a company you don’t like – and that’s not very charitable.

 

[vz71]

A business takes the characteristics and values of the men who run it. If they are moral, the business will be moral.

You’re tying yourself in knots in order to condemn a company you don’t like – and that’s not very charitable.

Unless you consider noting a tool as amoral to be a condemnation, I do not believe I have condemned Wal Mart at all.
If you do believe it a condemnation, then there are no knots necessary…It is what it is.

Whose morality does Wal Mart follow?
Which one? Which person?
How do we know? Are this person’s decisions always the ones Wal Mart follows? If not, how can you say it is his morality?
Find it difficult to answer? There is a reason for that.

As I said…It is a tool, and as such is as moral as a tool.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Unless you consider noting a tool as amoral to be a condemnation, I do not believe I have condemned Wal Mart at all.
If you do believe it a condemnation, then there are no knots necessary…It is what it is.

Whose morality does Wal Mart follow?
Which one? Which person?
How do we know? Are this person’s decisions always the ones Wal Mart follows? If not, how can you say it is his morality?
Find it difficult to answer? There is a reason for that.

As I said…It is a tool, and as such is as moral as a tool.

Oh, come on! You know you’ve said harsh and condemnatory things about Wal-Mart.

 

[vz71]

Then you do not believe the observation of amorality is a condemnation.

We are getting somewhere.

I see a fundemental difference in our views that I am uncertain can be reconciled.
You appear to attribute morality to the tools people use (as extensions of the user).
I view in a similar fashion, but do not see a single user in a corporation to attribute its morality to.

While you appear content to assign “the group” morality, I do not.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Then you do not believe the observation of amorality is a condemnation.

We are getting somewhere.

I believe this thread started out as an attack on Wal-Mart – an unjustified attack – and degenerated.

I see a fundemental difference in our views that I am uncertain can be reconciled.
You appear to attribute morality to the tools people use (as extensions of the user).
I view in a similar fashion, but do not see a single user in a corporation to attribute its morality to.

While you appear content to assign “the group” morality, I do not.

Odd – I thought that was what you did. I assign morality to individuals. And in groups, it is the morality the individuals that make up the group that determines the group’s actions.

 

[vz71]

I believe this thread started out as an attack on Wal-Mart – an unjustified attack – and degenerated.

Odd – I thought that was what you did. I assign morality to individuals. And in groups, it is the morality the individuals that make up the group that determines the group’s actions.

You were mistaken. Perhaps I was not clear.

I have serious reservations assigning morality to a tool with no clear user whose morality it can take on.
A sole Proprietorship I could view as moral because there is a single owner who makes the decisions for it.
A corporation (such as Wal Mart) has no such individual.

Consider what happens when a vote takes place.
Is the corp taking on the morality of those that did not win the vote? What if their vote wins next time? Does the morality change?
Seems the morality of the corp is too fluid to be considered morality. It must be amoral.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You were mistaken. Perhaps I was not clear.

I have serious reservations assigning morality to a tool with no clear user whose morality it can take on.

So you would excuse the Board of Directors if the corporation did evil?

A sole Proprietorship I could view as moral because there is a single owner who makes the decisions for it.
A corporation (such as Wal Mart) has no such individual.

No excuse – there are decision-making individuals in Wal-Mart, and they must take the blame when the corporation does evil, and share the merit when the corporation does good.

Consider what happens when a vote takes place.
Is the corp taking on the morality of those that did not win the vote?

Are you saying the corporation does what the losers of the vote want?

What if their vote wins next time? Does the morality change?

Yes – individuals and corporations can become better or worse over time. A man who was once sinful may become virtuous – as Jesus told us.

Seems the morality of the corp is too fluid to be considered morality. It must be amoral.

Seems the morality of the individual is too fluid to be considered morality. He must be amoral