IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: Evil is as evil does
> Forrest Gump couldn't make it any simplier.
>
> If a Corporation does something that causes suffering, then it can be labeled as Evil.

Faugh. Another person who can _not_ understand that the map is not the territory, because all his emotional capital is tied up in the reverse assertion.

A corporation is a synthetic, fiat entity. It exists because some government, somewhere, has declared it so. Its single most valuable attribute, from the point of view of the people who establish and use it, is its nonexistence. There is nothing there. It has a name, but the name is not the corporation. It has a charter; the charter establishes that the corporation exists, but it is not the corporation. It owns things, but the things it owns are not the corporation. It is a void, a vacuum without even vacuum energy, a nothingness, a convenient accounting trick, a name we give to a particular sort of organization people can participate in, like "democracy" or "club".

A corporation cannot "act" in any way, for good, evil, or snerg. It's as sensible to say that wistfulness could act, or idleness, or some other existential condition. People who are wistful can act; people who are idle can act, though they're more likely to be inactive (which is itself an action). The people who establish, populate, and use a corporation can act; they can even act "in the name of" the corporation, but the corporation itself cannot act, any more than beauty or patriotism themselves can act. There's nothing there to perform the act.

When you say a corporation is evil, you are excusing evil -- evil done by the people who establish, populate, and/or use the corporation. You are allowing an abstract notion to serve as a shield behind which evil can flourish, and trying to impress people with your righteous actions against evil. In my experience, people who do that do it either from stone ignorance, or (more likely) from a combination of cupidity and left-liberal fuzzymindedness. Cupidity, because the corporation has something you want, probably money; fuggheadedness, because you want to be able to be all warm and fuzzy about how people are the same everywhere and basically good.

The result is that evil does, indeed, flourish.

Congratulations.
Regards,
Ric
New Then it is the evil managers
and evil employees of the Corp that do the evil. Happy now? Got a Corp full of Vincent McMahons, Charlie Mansons, Ike Turners, Mike Tysons, and Wanna be Satans committing all the evil that is related to the Corp.

Can I sue the Corp, the evil people who work for the Corp, or both?

"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
New Trying to set some basis
I suspect that the only major disagreement we have here is a difference of opinion on how the word "evil" is to be used.

You seem to be holding to the posistion that only self aware entities are capable of being good/evil. I however apply the word more broadly, using it in connection with processes, events and in rare cases even objects.

Thus I would describe Nazi party in Germany as being evil without having to make reference to the specific people that made it up. I might go so far as to refer to Facism itself as being evil.

But I get the impression that you would not, since you reserve the word evil to people.

Am I making sense here?

Jay
New Relativism
The Nazi Party was composed of individuals, many of whom were evil. The Party itself... is a nonentity, a label. Nazis did evil; the Nazi Party formed a framework, just as XYZ Inc. forms a framework for, yes, evil deeds.

Fascism is a political philosophy. I'm divided in my own mind as to whether to call it "evil" or not; if followed, the ideology of Fascism certainly results in evil.

And yes, I consider it not merely incorrect, but itself evil to ascribe evil to other than a thinking being, a "person". The "personhood" of a corporation is a legal fiction, not a reality. Assigning evil to the gun rather than the wielder, the corporation rather than the executives, or the party rather than its members, excuses the wielder, the exec, and the members -- and if you excuse it, you participate in it.

Hypothetical example, which somebody may be able to find a concrete version of: the X Corporation, in obedience with the new ordnances, forbids smoking in the workplace. The smokers among the workers evade the new regime by sneaking out the fire exits to grab a smoke. The managers of the plant, concerned by the resulting decrease in productivity, order the security section to chain the fire exits shut. There is a fire in the plant, and several workers die because the fire exits couldn't be used.

What's going to happen?

Well, the X Corporation is obviously gonna get sued, right? And they'll lose, because X Corporation is obviously "guilty". So the widows, widowers, and orphans of the dead workers get a nice piece of change.

But who's really guilty? The _actor_ who caused the deaths is the security guard who physically chained the doors shut; and, under any reasonable definition of the terms, the exec who ordered that action is accessory before the fact and probably a conspirator, in other words just as guilty as the guard is; to my mind, more so, since he effectively extorts misbehavior from the guard by threat of dismissal if the doors aren't chained toot-sweet.

Under the existing system, the investors and stockholders of X Corporation -- many, if not most, of whom knew nothing of the action and would not have condoned it if they did -- get a substantial portion of their wealth taken away, to pay the WWO and their lawyers. The security guard who obeyed orders gets fired. And the executive who gave the order gets a bonus for constructive contributions to the legal effort, and goes home happy.

In other words: Hammer the uninvolved, punish the hapless, and let the real author of all those deaths go free with a fat check to console his conscience. If you want evil, as far as I'm concerned that's it.
Regards,
Ric
New Re: Relativism
> And yes, I consider it not merely incorrect, but itself evil to ascribe evil to other than a thinking being, a "person". The "personhood" of a corporation is a legal fiction, not a reality. Assigning evil to the gun rather than the wielder, the corporation rather than the executives, or the party rather than its members, excuses the wielder, the exec, and the members -- and if you excuse it, you participate in it.

I am not labeling corporations evil to excuse the actions of individuals. Rather, what I am talking about is the capacity for corporations to inflict harm even when the actions of none of the employees could be considered evil themselves.

To put together an example, lets say company Z sets up a factory in some third world country. They want to minimize the number of factories they have, so they have built a very large one. The size of the factory is such that they have to offer higher wages to attact employees, but also means that they are by far the single largest employeer in the country.

Several years later they decide to move on to another country that has a larger unemployeed population, so they can hire more people at a lower wage.

This causes the economy of of the first country to collapse, destroying the lives of thousands.

The question is, who, if anybody, could be considered evil here? The managers of company Z can not really be blaimed for minimizing company expenses, nor can the citizens of country be blaimed for taking the highest paying job. The government of that country does carry some fault for letting all their eggs in one basket, but they can't be said to have to much.

This is the sort of evil I am ascribing to the company as a whole, evil that can not be reasonably ascribed to any individual.

However, the above does not excuse intentional acts of malice or corruption. If some manager at company Z bribes a local offical to shut down compeating factories to free up employees at a lower rate that is direct evil by that manager and anybody at the company that knew of it.

> Hypothetical example, which somebody may be able to find a concrete version of: the X Corporation, in obedience with the new ordnances, forbids smoking in the workplace. The smokers among the workers evade the new regime by sneaking out the fire exits to grab a smoke. The managers of the plant, concerned by the resulting decrease in productivity, order the security section to chain the fire exits shut. There is a fire in the plant, and several workers die because the fire exits couldn't be used.
>
> What's going to happen?
>
> Well, the X Corporation is obviously gonna get sued, right? And they'll lose, because X Corporation is obviously "guilty". So the widows, widowers, and orphans of the dead workers get a nice piece of change.
>
> But who's really guilty? The _actor_ who caused the deaths is the security guard who physically chained the doors shut; and, under any reasonable definition of the terms, the exec who ordered that action is accessory before the fact and probably a conspirator, in other words just as guilty as the guard is; to my mind, more so, since he effectively extorts misbehavior from the guard by threat of dismissal if the doors aren't chained toot-sweet.
>
> Under the existing system, the investors and stockholders of X Corporation -- many, if not most, of whom knew nothing of the action and would not have condoned it if they did -- get a substantial portion of their wealth taken away, to pay the WWO and their lawyers. The security guard who obeyed orders gets fired. And the executive who gave the order gets a bonus for constructive contributions to the legal effort, and goes home happy.
>
> In other words: Hammer the uninvolved, punish the hapless, and let the real author of all those deaths go free with a fat check to console his conscience. If you want evil, as far as I'm concerned that's it.

That the manager in this case gets off without punishment is wrong, I would agree with that. But I would not hold the investors and shareholders blameless in a situation like this. They knew (or should have) what sort of company they where investing in. As the owners of the company they have responsibility to see that the people under them are not breaking the law.

As a matter of fact, I believe that much of the problem with the current situation is that investors and shareholders do not share sufficent blame in these cases. Because they can not lose more then their original investment, they are encourged to invest their money in the company promising the highest return, even if the company is obviously shady or questionable, they pick managers based on who seems to promise the greatest cash flow, not which will keep the company out of court.

On a side note, is it just me or is the style used by the Quote button clumsy? It makes it hard to tell what is a quote and what is not.

Jay

New Interesting.
So, it's "evil" when the employees die.

But................

What if there wasn't a fire? What if no one died.

Was the action still "evil"?

Does "evil" only apply to the consequences of an act?

A gun is not "evil".

Ever read "Deadeye Dick"? A boy shoots a rifle into the air. The bullet kills a person. Is he "evil"?

Relativism: Not that everything is equal. But that "good" and "evil" are viewpoints. And these viewpoints change.
     Corporations and evil - (JayMehaffey) - (99)
         Thanks for cutting through the bull. -NT - (Silverlock) - (3)
             Figures you'd say that. -NT - (marlowe) - (1)
                 Nickel. -NT - (Silverlock)
             Bull? BULL???? My posts were NOT BULL!!! -NT - (mmoffitt)
         But does it have to be that way? - (Brandioch) - (37)
             I love those ethics. - (bepatient) - (34)
                 Jawohl! - (Brandioch) - (33)
                     You obviously know zero about this case..(added link) - (bepatient) - (32)
                         Hmmmmm, maybe you're right. - (Brandioch) - (31)
                             A jury did settle it. - (bepatient) - (30)
                                 I've read the case. - (Brandioch) - (29)
                                     So... - (bepatient) - (28)
                                         Just giving you enough rope. - (Brandioch) - (27)
                                             Answer the question. - (bepatient) - (26)
                                                 You're just hanging yourself higher. - (Brandioch) - (25)
                                                     Childish little prick - (drewk) - (8)
                                                         how do you know he's little ? ]:-> -NT - (boxley)
                                                         You can quote, but you lack understanding. - (Brandioch) - (6)
                                                             You don't need to be manipulated - (drewk) - (5)
                                                                 Don't hate me because I'm beautiful. - (Brandioch) - (4)
                                                                     Oh, no wonder you're so upset - (drewk) - (3)
                                                                         Let's go over that again. - (Brandioch)
                                                                         Don't bother DK... - (bepatient)
                                                                         Don't bother DK... - (bepatient)
                                                     Yeah...sure... - (bepatient) - (15)
                                                         *SCORE* - (Brandioch) - (14)
                                                             Somebody needs to lighten up and get laid. - (Silverlock)
                                                             Whatever. - (bepatient) - (12)
                                                                 Weasel weasel weasel.... - (Brandioch) - (11)
                                                                     The officers of Enron thank you for your support! - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                                                                         Why oh why oh why. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                                             Re: Why oh why oh why. - (a6l6e6x)
                                                                     I'm so happy for you. - (bepatient) - (7)
                                                                         Hey, I'm not the one with the problem. - (Brandioch) - (6)
                                                                             say what? - (boxley) - (2)
                                                                                 Um, okay. "What". - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                                                     thats fine -NT - (boxley)
                                                                             Are you even trying anymore? - (drewk) - (1)
                                                                                 Clarification. - (Brandioch)
                                                                             Sure... - (bepatient)
             B & J are eeeeevil! - (rsf)
             Ben and Jerry's is GONE. -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Mom & Pop shops too? - (rsf) - (2)
             Thank you for that. One point down. -NT - (bepatient)
             That depends - (JayMehaffey)
         So... - (bepatient) - (13)
             Just more sympathetic magic - (Ric Locke) - (11)
                 Your making my point for me - (JayMehaffey) - (10)
                     Evil is as evil does - (nking) - (7)
                         I wouldn't have said it quite that way - (wharris2)
                         Re: Evil is as evil does - (Ric Locke) - (5)
                             Then it is the evil managers - (nking)
                             Trying to set some basis - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
                                 Relativism - (Ric Locke) - (2)
                                     Re: Relativism - (JayMehaffey)
                                     Interesting. - (Brandioch)
                     Evil is as evil does - (nking)
                     What acts in an evil manner? - (marlowe)
             Re: So... - (JayMehaffey)
         Another "by that logic" - (wharris2) - (28)
             How many times must I hammer this - (JayMehaffey) - (27)
                 I must have overlooked it - (wharris2) - (24)
                     If you get scared you must overlook it, besides you knew - (nking) - (23)
                         Norm, you gotta get over this... - (hnick) - (22)
                             Did you even bother to read my posts - (nking) - (2)
                                 Re: Did you even bother to read my posts - (hnick) - (1)
                                     Reform! - (nking)
                             Interesting phrasing there. - (Brandioch) - (5)
                                 Hmmmm interesting! - (nking)
                                 Hmmm - (rsf) - (3)
                                     We seem to have come full circle - back to the daleross(?) - (Ashton) - (2)
                                         Not as stoichastic as you suggest... - (hnick) - (1)
                                             Allow me to clarify. - (Brandioch)
                             I think you've hit on the REAL problem... - (jb4) - (12)
                                 Once that may have been true - (Silverlock) - (3)
                                     Sadly, I believe you are correct. - (hnick) - (2)
                                         Putting the cart before the horse - (jb4) - (1)
                                             Ok, you have a point - (hnick)
                                 Now this may sound silly - (nking) - (7)
                                     And your point is...? - (jb4) - (5)
                                         My point, dear JB, - (nking) - (4)
                                             Not necessarily true - (rsf) - (3)
                                                 What you fail to mention... - (jb4) - (2)
                                                     I know, I know... - (rsf) - (1)
                                                         At the very least - (nking)
                                     And your point is...? - (jb4)
                 Must you hammer this??? - (folkert) - (1)
                     The part I was hammering - (JayMehaffey)
         Setting aside their personal morality for the company? - (marlowe) - (6)
             been there done that - (boxley) - (5)
                 'Evil' Corporations..? - (Ashton) - (4)
                     Arguing over definitions again, I think - (Silverlock) - (3)
                         No, "Evil" fits - (Ric Locke) - (1)
                             Seconded in spades. - (Ashton)
                         Since a corporation by legal definition is an - (boxley)
         After a long pause, my reply... - (screamer) - (3)
             The kudos always go to those who - (Ashton)
             Mostly I agree - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                 It's a love fest then... - (screamer)

That sounds like a venereal disease.
227 ms