Jump to content

Are Corporations Evil ?


CitizenX

Recommended Posts

I'm not talking about the wal mart worker. I'm talking about the 14 year old girl working 14 hours a day, 7 days a week for 20 cents an hour. And if you don't think that they work for people that treat them like chattel you are sadly mistaken. All for some crappy T-shirt you buy for $9.99.

The proof is out there for you to find. I realize that no matter how much proof I show you, You will dispute it, because you just don't want to find the truth. You like the world the way it is, and you don't want to know where the products you buy come from.

Actually I tend to pay attention to where the products I buy come from. Depending on the class of product, there can be a considerable difference in quality. I tend to stay away from clothing and outdoor equipment made in China, for example, because it often exhibits limited durability. Same reason I stay away from cars made in America and instead buy Japanese ones.

You are right, I do like the world the way it is. It is working out quite nicely for me. But, being trained as a scientist, I always want to find "truth", to the extent that it is possible to do so, at least on subjects that interest me anyway. So what proof do you have that Walmart exploits child slave labour as part of its operations?

In any case, I would say that, if such working conditions exist in China, they say a lot more about the morality of the leaders of China's government than about anyone or anything else. Furthermore, one must also consider the alternative. While perhaps no longer applicable to China, in many underdeveloped nations, a 20c/hour job can mean the difference between starving to death in the streets and being able to afford food and shelter. Remember that the cost of living in these nations is many many times lower than it is in North America. In fact, that is one of the reasons that our economies now face as much trouble that they do, it is because our labour force faces such intense wage competition from overseas, where people can afford to work for much less. Anyway, if this girl of yours has the option of quitting and no longer working there, it's not slavery.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually I tend to pay attention to where the products I buy come from. Depending on the class of product, there can be a considerable difference in quality. I tend to stay away from clothing and outdoor equipment made in China, for example, because it often exhibits limited durability. Same reason I stay away from cars made in America and instead buy Japanese ones.

You are right, I do like the world the way it is. It is working out quite nicely for me. But, being trained as a scientist, I always want to find "truth", to the extent that it is possible to do so, at least on subjects that interest me anyway. So what proof do you have that Walmart exploits child slave labour as part of its operations?

In any case, I would say that, if such working conditions exist in China, they say a lot more about the morality of the leaders of China's government than about anyone or anything else. Furthermore, one must also consider the alternative. While perhaps no longer applicable to China, in many underdeveloped nations, a 20c/hour job can mean the difference between starving to death in the streets and being able to afford food and shelter. Remember that the cost of living in these nations is many many times lower than it is in North America. In fact, that is one of the reasons that our economies now face as much trouble that they do, it is because our labour force faces such intense wage competition from overseas, where people can afford to work for much less. Anyway, if this girl of yours has the option of quitting and no longer working there, it's not slavery.

While perhaps no longer applicable to China, in many underdeveloped nations, a 20c/hour job can mean the difference between starving to death in the streets and being able to afford food and shelter.

I see a problem with that justification though... it could be used for just about anything. You could even make the same argument about slavery because at least africans sold into slavery were mostly given food and shelter, which is more than many other Africans had.

Seems like we as consumers should have our own values on what is fair and not allow the lowest common denominator to determine our values for us. Morally is there really any diference between buying a product made by a company that subjects its workers to horrible conditions and owning such a company? Not really. When you buy a product you vote with your wallet and you fund the practices of that company.

We buy stuff from communist countries and autocratic regimes because its cheaper to make stuff in places where workers have no rights, shitty lives, and no political representation. Well no DUH its cheaper! I bet ya we could have bought cheap stuff from Soviet gulags during the cold war too! Todays generation probably WOULD have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a problem with that justification though... it could be used for just about anything. You could even make the same argument about slavery because at least africans sold into slavery were mostly given food and shelter, which is more than many other Africans had.
There is no comparision. Slaves were required by law to work for their master. If they refused to work their master is legally entitled to use violance to force compliance. People forced by economics to work for a wage are not compelled by law. If they wanted to starve in the street they can walk away from their employers at any time. The difference is extremely important. In developing countries many people starving in the street so a low wage job in bad working conditions offers a way out. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a problem with that justification though... it could be used for just about anything. You could even make the same argument about slavery because at least africans sold into slavery were mostly given food and shelter, which is more than many other Africans had.

Moot point....slavery in North America (including Canada) was part of an economic system that included many other classes of indentured servitude. And it was enforced by the laws of the day.

Seems like we as consumers should have our own values on what is fair and not allow the lowest common denominator to determine our values for us. Morally is there really any diference between buying a product made by a company that subjects its workers to horrible conditions and owning such a company? Not really. When you buy a product you vote with your wallet and you fund the practices of that company.

OK....then each consumer can make his/her choice based on their value system, but I am pretty sure what the main driver will be....price.

We buy stuff from communist countries and autocratic regimes because its cheaper to make stuff in places where workers have no rights, shitty lives, and no political representation. Well no DUH its cheaper! I bet ya we could have bought cheap stuff from Soviet gulags during the cold war too! Todays generation probably WOULD have.

You buy stuff from the United States as well, even while bitching about its domestic and foreign policies. No real difference there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I tend to pay attention to where the products I buy come from. Depending on the class of product, there can be a considerable difference in quality. I tend to stay away from clothing and outdoor equipment made in China, for example, because it often exhibits limited durability. Same reason I stay away from cars made in America and instead buy Japanese ones.

You are right, I do like the world the way it is. It is working out quite nicely for me. But, being trained as a scientist, I always want to find "truth", to the extent that it is possible to do so, at least on subjects that interest me anyway. So what proof do you have that Walmart exploits child slave labour as part of its operations?

In any case, I would say that, if such working conditions exist in China, they say a lot more about the morality of the leaders of China's government than about anyone or anything else. Furthermore, one must also consider the alternative. While perhaps no longer applicable to China, in many underdeveloped nations, a 20c/hour job can mean the difference between starving to death in the streets and being able to afford food and shelter. Remember that the cost of living in these nations is many many times lower than it is in North America. In fact, that is one of the reasons that our economies now face as much trouble that they do, it is because our labour force faces such intense wage competition from overseas, where people can afford to work for much less. Anyway, if this girl of yours has the option of quitting and no longer working there, it's not slavery.

So if I understand you correctly, you are more concerned with the quality of the product that you are purchasing than how it is produced.

If you truly have an interest in finding the truth there are plenty of resources out there. No one can force the truth on people they must seek it out for them selves, examine both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusions. This is the only way that you will truly believe, and change the way you behave as a consumer.

And finally, allot of the evil acts that are perpetrated arise from the deflection of responsibility. You are responsible for how you act as a consumer.

Edited by CitizenX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can spare a couple hours. I do suggest hitting youtube and watching something called 'The Corporation'. Worth the watch.

Yes it's a great documentary. The Corporation - (Full Movie)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvPXR_6cn0s

If your interested in the history of Corporate Personhood check out this video. Very enlightening as to where capitalism went wrong.

Some books you might find of interest ....(Please Buy Locally, and from small business)

Edited by CitizenX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my view that Corporations are evil entities. So why do I believe this? Before I give my reasons lets look at some definitions.

Evil doesn't fit IMO...

Asocial is better

a·so·cial (-sshl)

adj.

1. Not social: "Bears are asocial, secretive animals" (David Graber).

2. Avoiding or averse to the society of others; not sociable: "It's not that you're so asocial, but a man who likes people doesn't wind up in the Antarctic" (Saul Bellow).

3. Unable or unwilling to conform to normal standards of social behavior; antisocial: "crime, riots, drug use and other asocial behavior" (Derek Shearer).

4. Inconsiderate of others; self-centered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evil doesn't fit IMO...

Asocial is better

a·so·cial (-sshl)

adj.

1. Not social: "Bears are asocial, secretive animals" (David Graber).

2. Avoiding or averse to the society of others; not sociable: "It's not that you're so asocial, but a man who likes people doesn't wind up in the Antarctic" (Saul Bellow).

3. Unable or unwilling to conform to normal standards of social behavior; antisocial: "crime, riots, drug use and other asocial behavior" (Derek Shearer).

4. Inconsiderate of others; self-centered.

How about Amoral ?

a·mor·al

   

adjective

1.not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

2.having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

What is your definition of evil ?

I derived my definition from the book The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty by Simon Baron-Cohen

Edited by CitizenX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you truly have an interest in finding the truth there are plenty of resources out there. No one can force the truth on people they must seek it out for them selves, examine both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusions. This is the only way that you will truly believe, and change the way you behave as a consumer.

I have found the truth, but won't change my consumer habits one bit, except to buy more stuff.

And finally, allot of the evil acts that are perpetrated arise from the deflection of responsibility. You are responsible for how you act as a consumer.

OK....does this mean you are going to sue us for consuming so much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, amoral is the correct adjective. Corporations have no intrinsic morality. They are neither moral nor immoral.

This could I think be disputed to some degree, but for the purposes of debate it might be better to change the question rather than belabour that point: We need not ask whether corporations are evil if we can answer whether they do evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could I think be disputed to some degree, but for the purposes of debate it might be better to change the question rather than belabour that point: We need not ask whether corporations are evil if we can answer whether they do evil.

Yes, that would be a somewhat less ridiculous thesis to debate. Insofar as "evil" is defined as doing physical, economic, emotional, or environmental harm to someone or something, some corporations certainly do evil. But corporations also do "good", in that they generate economic activity, without which most of us would be living at a much lower standard of living. If one proceeds with such definitions, the real question would be what the ratio of good to evil done by corporations is, and whether there is any alternate system that could provide the same (or more) good while doing less evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that would be a somewhat less ridiculous thesis to debate. Insofar as "evil" is defined as doing physical, economic, emotional, or environmental harm to someone or something, some corporations certainly do evil. But corporations also do "good", in that they generate economic activity, without which most of us would be living at a much lower standard of living. If one proceeds with such definitions, the real question would be what the ratio of good to evil done by corporations is, and whether there is any alternate system that could provide the same (or more) good while doing less evil.

Keep in mind that "doing good" , even a lot of good, need not necessarily mitigate the "doing evil" . A paramedic, a police officer or a soldier may save uncounted people in their lifetimes, but that is not likely to be judged to cancel out the evil if they go out and murder even just a handful of people in cold blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that would be a somewhat less ridiculous thesis to debate. Insofar as "evil" is defined as doing physical, economic, emotional, or environmental harm to someone or something, some corporations certainly do evil. But corporations also do "good", in that they generate economic activity, without which most of us would be living at a much lower standard of living. If one proceeds with such definitions, the real question would be what the ratio of good to evil done by corporations is, and whether there is any alternate system that could provide the same (or more) good while doing less evil.

Any good that comes from a corporation is a byproduct of profit making. They don't employ people because they are good social citizens, if they could get along without any employee's they would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Whats the big deal. :huh:

The big deal is that Americans (and Canadians) get to vote (or not vote at all) for the candidate of their choosing. It is pathetic for you to lobby for my vote in another nation, and I know damn well that Canadians would not appreciate like circumstances from "'merkins". America will vote for a president in 2012, and you don't get a say in that. It is pathetic that you may think your fortune is tied to the outcome of an American election.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is pathetic that you may think your fortune is tied to the outcome of an American election.

It's not pathetic, it's a reality. The world is linked to what happens in America. If the states go down, which looks like it is, the whole world is effected. So lighten up.....and ohh yaa VOTE RON PAUL 2012. Check the American board that topic was for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not pathetic, it's a reality. The world is linked to what happens in America. If the states go down, which looks like it is, the whole world is effected. So lighten up.....and ohh yaa VOTE RON PAUL 2012. Check the American board that topic was for you.

Jeezuz...you are pathetic. If the "states go down", there isn't anything you can do about it anyway. Ron Paul will be another loser in 2012, just like before. I don't vote for losers, and you can't vote at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big deal is that Americans (and Canadians) get to vote (or not vote at all) for the candidate of their choosing. It is pathetic for you to lobby for my vote in another nation, and I know damn well that Canadians would not appreciate like circumstances from "'merkins". America will vote for a president in 2012, and you don't get a say in that. It is pathetic that you may think your fortune is tied to the outcome of an American election.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my view that Corporations are evil entities. So why do I believe this? Before I give my reasons lets look at some definitions.

Corporation - an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. - dicionary.com

Corporations are an artificial monstrosity that destroy any possibility of a "free market".

They shouldn't exist.

They are a mistake that humans made but, I don't think that I'd call them evil.

In my view a corporation is a piece of paper that reflects the good and evil of its stakeholders; shareholders, creditors and employees. If corporations did not exist economic growth would not occur since people could not limit their exposure to risk.

Edited by jbg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...