Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

[Newbie2]

I’ll ask again, if the attorney kicked in maybe half of his seemingly outrageous fee, wouldn’t that solve the problem? Look at the money, people, look at the money.

 

[vz71]

The people who make and act on the decisions, of course!

So when you say Wal Mart is altruistic, you really mean people that work for Wal Mart are altruistic…not the corporation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So when you say Wal Mart is altruistic, you really mean people that work for Wal Mart are altruistic…not the corporation.

Correct – the actions of the corporation (which are laudatory in this case) are due to the decisions and actions of the people who run the corporation. Wal-Mart is a responsible business and a good neighbor – because that’s the policy of the** people** who run the corporation.

 

[vz71]

Then why the objection when I call the corporation amoral?

I believe I have written an many occasions throughout this thread that I make a distinction between the two.
I have also continually called the corporation nothing more then a tool on several occasions.

Clearly you must realize I have not called anyone amoral, just a tool…

Unless I have not been clear in explaining how I view these things…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Then why the objection when I call the corporation amoral?

Would you object if I called you amoral?

The moral tone of the corporation is set by its management. If you call the corporation amoral, you are calling the management amoral.

I believe I have written an many occasions throughout this thread that I make a distinction between the two.
I have also continually called the corporation nothing more then a tool on several occasions.

Clearly you must realize I have not called anyone amoral, just a tool.

Is a hammer moral? Morality is not a quality that applies to a tool.

Unless I have not been clear in explaining how I view these things…

You keep mixing meanings for corporation – if you mean the people (as in “Today Washington announce . . .”) then claims that “the corporation” is amoral are wrong – because the people are not amoral.

If you mean the assets apart from the people then morality does not apply – any more than it would apply to a hammer.

 

[vz71]

Would you object if I called you amoral?

The moral tone of the corporation is set by its management. If you call the corporation amoral, you are calling the management amoral.

Is a hammer moral? Morality is not a quality that applies to a tool.

You keep mixing meanings for corporation – if you mean the people (as in “Today Washington announce . . .”) then claims that “the corporation” is amoral are wrong – because the people are not amoral.

If you mean the assets apart from the people then morality does not apply – any more than it would apply to a hammer.

I do not believe I am mixing up the term corporation at all here.

In this previous post, you claimed that a corporation has the morality of the management, and then proceeded to lay claim that tools cannot have a morality.
Either the corporation is a tool of the management or it is not.
I see no half way here.

Either a tool is amoral, or it is not a tool.

I am also confused with the sudden change in your vocabulary from a definite morality in a corporation to “moral tone.”
Please explain…

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do not believe I am mixing up the term corporation at all here.

In this previous post, you claimed that a corporation has the morality of the management, and then proceeded to lay claim that tools cannot have a morality.
Either the corporation is a tool of the management or it is not.
I see no half way here.

If it is a tool, then concepts like “moral” and “amoral” do not apply

Either a tool is amoral, or it is not a tool.

No tool partakes of any aspect of morality. Hammers cannot sin.

I am also confused with the sudden change in your vocabulary from a definite morality in a corporation to “moral tone.”
Please explain…

The “climate” or “tone” of a large organization is a concept well understood by people who specialize in collective skills. The management sets the “tone” and those in lower levels are inculcated with it.

A good example would be McDonald’s in Russia. People working in Russian “stores” were surly, arrogant and condescending. They had what you wanted, and you should be greatful they would allow you to buy it.

McDonald’s had to train them to look on customers as doing them a favor. The tone changed – and the change was driven by high level management.

 

[vz71]

If it is a tool, then concepts like “moral” and “amoral” do not apply
No tool partakes of any aspect of morality. Hammers cannot sin.

I think you may have your terminology mixed up here.
amoral refers to a lack of morality.
This is entirely different from immoral.

The “climate” or “tone” of a large organization is a concept well understood by people who specialize in collective skills. The management sets the “tone” and those in lower levels are inculcated with it.

A good example would be McDonald’s in Russia. People working in Russian “stores” were surly, arrogant and condescending. They had what you wanted, and you should be greatful they would allow you to buy it.

McDonald’s had to train them to look on customers as doing them a favor. The tone changed – and the change was driven by high level management.

Perhaps, but this does not explain why you changed your vocabulary so radically.
You have gone from holding Wal Mart as having a specific morality to suddenly refering to a ‘moral tone’
‘Tone’ is not the same thing as morality.

Since they are not the same, I am left wondering why you have changed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think you may have your terminology mixed up here.
amoral refers to a lack of morality.
This is entirely different from immoral.

“Amoral” can be used only to apply to those who have the capability of being moral. A man can be amoral. A hammer cannot.

Perhaps, but this does not explain why you changed your vocabulary so radically.

I haven’t

You have gone from holding Wal Mart as having a specific morality to suddenly refering to a ‘moral tone’
‘Tone’ is not the same thing as morality.

But morality is the same thing as morality. In an organization, the leadership sets the tone. That is part of being a leader.

Since they are not the same, I am left wondering why you have changed.

I haven’t changed, nor have I claimed they are the same. I have merely explained to you that organizations are often at least partly controlled by inculcating tone or values.

 

[vz71]

The moral tone of the corporation is set by its management. If you call the corporation amoral, you are calling the management amoral.

See?
There it is…‘moral tone’

Yet in previous posts, you go about defining the morality.

Why the change?

 

[vern_humphrey]

See?
There it is…‘moral tone’

Yet in previous posts, you go about defining the morality.

Why the change?

You’ve gotten yourself badly confused. There is no change. Moral tone is simply the propensity for morality in organizations. In formal organizations, it is set by the leaders. You cannot observe moral tone – but you can observe actions and from that deduce what the moral tone is.

 

[vz71]

Throughout the first two pages of this thread, you centered on morality.

Now you have moved to ‘moral tone’

The two are not the same.

Why the change?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Throughout the first two pages of this thread, you centered on morality.

Now you have moved to ‘moral tone’

The two are not the same.

Why the change?

This is really disingenuous of you. You have ceased to offer argument and are now pretending that I have somehow “changed.”

Let’s drop it – while I can still respect you.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I think you may have your terminology mixed up here.
amoral refers to a lack of morality.
This is entirely different from immoral.

Perhaps, but this does not explain why you changed your vocabulary so radically.
You have gone from holding Wal Mart as having a specific morality to suddenly refering to a ‘moral tone’
‘Tone’ is not the same thing as morality.

Since they are not the same, I am left wondering why you have changed.

What some fail to recognize is that some tools have an inherently immoral purpose, but that’s something for a topic relating to adultery, premarital sex or homasexiality.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What some fail to recognize is that some tools have an inherently immoral purpose, but that’s something for a topic relating to adultery, premarital sex or homasexiality.

I suppose a set of instruments designed solely for abortion might have an inherently immoral purpose. But the tools themself are not immoral – it is the man who uses them.

There are no hammers condemned to hell.

 

[vz71]

This is really disingenuous of you. You have ceased to offer argument and are now pretending that I have somehow “changed.”

Let’s drop it – while I can still respect you.

Sure.
I see the alteration of the vocabulary you are using subtly changes the argument.

We are no longer arguing two different things…so there is no point.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sure.
I see the alteration of the vocabulary you are using subtly changes the argument.

There is no “alteration of the vocabulary.” There is simply a more in-depth explanation of why the people who lead corporations, not the corporations themselves, are responsible for the morality or lack there of.

 

[vz71]

the people who lead corporations, not the corporations themselves, are responsible for the morality or lack there of.

Exactly.

Like I said. No point, we are arguing the same point.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly.

Like I said. No point, we are arguing the same point.

As you will.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

How big hearted and considerate this corporate giant is. It just makes me want to go and buy something from one of their competitors!

Full story.

Obviously a tragedy and I will pray for this poor woman, but I believe that clause (repaying the insurer any amounts awarded in court to the extent the insurer paid the claim) is pretty standard. I don’t see any problem with Wal-Mart collecting. The lawyers who won a large sum from that case certainly didn’t mind collecting their fees. Furthermore I believe Wal-Mart then went back and didn’t take the repayment (after public outcry). Am I wrong with that statement?