When people talk about corporations and morality, I am reminded about the quip about Larry Ellison:
> You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower.
Think of a corporation like a function called `makeMoney`, which takes inputs like costs, advantages, benefits, and so on. Morality is not an input parameter at all, so why do people expect that it would be taken into account? If one wants morality to be taken into account, it should be explicitly done so, via some sort of input parameter, like legislation. Otherwise, don't expect anything to change.
Do people expect it or do they merely want to change things such that it is an input parameter?
Just because sociopaths are allowed to run rampant and fuck up everything for the rest of us doesn't mean we have to like it and it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing something about it.
Legislation can be bought.
Corporations do not act but for the behest of their controllers and decision makers, who clearly should take morality into account. Larry Ellison is not a lawnmower, he is a person who is responsible for the decisions he makes and how those decisions effect those around him. Larry Ellison CAN hate you, Larry Ellison COULD give a shit about you. He chooses not to. He deserves the negative repercussions from decisions he makes. It is simply inane to demand that every aspect of morality must be legislated before corporate owners and decision makers should include it as a factor. It is only the security afforded to them by the rest of the population permitting them to continue operating that allows them to operate as they do.
Frankly, your point is far less insightful than you think.
Like it not, my comment is how corporations work. We've tried letting them have in-built morality, but guess what, it didn't work before, and it doesn't work now.
> who clearly should take morality into account.
"Clearly?" Why? How is it clear at all? If there are no consequences or benefits for doing so (and indeed, a highly beneficial outcome by not doing so), why should they?
> he is a person who is responsible for the decisions he makes and how those decisions effect those around him
You're viewing this from your own moral viewpoint. Imagine, what if Ellison simply doesn't give a shit at all about how his decisions affect those around him, what would you do then? At some point, if corporations or other entities aren't following the rules we set out informally as a society, then yes, you must formally and explicitly lay out the rules you want them to follow. Otherwise, stuff like in TFA will happen, and will continue to happen.
That same moral compass which without they would not be able to function or operate?
>Like it not, my comment is how corporations work. We've tried letting them have in-built morality, but guess what, it didn't work before, and it doesn't work now.
Except it isn't, they rely on the morality of their WORKERS to achieve their objectives. You simply believe that leaders and decision makers get a free pass on ignoring morality while anyone without sufficient power must behave morally lest they be punished. How does boot polish taste?
And I refer you to my first sentence in my reply.
> How does boot polish taste?
I see, this is how I can tell you are not asking in good faith. Goodbye, new account made just 13 days ago.
>"Clearly?" Why? How is it clear at all? If there are no consequences or benefits for doing so (and indeed, a highly beneficial outcome by not doing so), why should they?
Quite obviously implies that corporations are justified in optimizing for their own benefit without factoring morality.
The anecdote provided about Larry Ellison has the same implication.
The parent saying an approximation of "I'm just explaining how the world works" is not only incorrect, patronizing and overly general but also implies that corporations are just a force of nature rather than a group of people who should be held responsible for the immorality of their decisions.
The key is not to villainize fossil fuels, but to recognize their benefits and costs and decide collectively via policy what tradeoffs we’re willing to make.
Think about how privileged you are in life that you can even consider not depending on fossil fuels. Hysterical takes like yours come across completely naive and uninformed.
> recognize their benefits and costs and decide collectively via policy what tradeoffs we’re willing to make
How can we do that when fossil fuel companies lie about the benefits and costs? How can we do that when they bribe politicians for favorable legislation? You are the naive one, and not particularly well-informed given you did not even read the article.
It may feel cathartic to lash out at perceived “evil” entities but you accomplish nothing that way. Some prefer perception of justice to actual results though, so to each their own.
I think you’d find a world without fossil fuels has quite a bit more misery than the one we have today. Green transition needs to be well thought out and planned for, not taken lightly
Indeed, tell that to the politicians who made their energy policy decisions based on conversations with oil lobbies.
I feel no catharsis from commenting, and I don't pretend that bad press is 'justice'. Justice would be prison time for the people in charge that suppressed this information. I have no way of working toward this vision of society other than bitching to politicians and peers about every individual company's moral fuck ups.
What actual results are you working towards? What is your version of justice in this case?
IMO, it's less "all those other bad people are enjoying running fossil fuel companies" than it is "all of us people are enjoying the benefits of fossil fuel burning".
(I daily an EV; I don't pretend that makes me any better than the average American, which is to say I am substantially worse than the average Earthling.)
It's not about burning fossil fuels, it's about misinforming the public about the long-term dangers of your product. If I sell you a delicious candy while secretly knowing it will give you cancer in 10 years, I don't get to say "well you enjoyed the candy didn't you?" once I'm caught out.
Are they blameless? Nope. Are they solely (or even primarily) to blame? Also nope.
I don't understand what your objection is?
But that's inconvenient, so consumers keep demanding oil and then act shocked and tut-tut when oil companies provide it.
I really don't understand your point and your smug judgements on consumers. Do you consume no oil products? Or are you just saying that you knew all along oil is bad so you're better than the 'naive masses'?
I'm not shocked that oil companies provide oil, I'm shocked that many people don't want to take any action even when it comes out that the oil companies baldly lied about their role in climate change.
I'm also baffled that some people want to shift the blame away from the oil companies.
I don't get confused or pretend that oil companies go to great lengths to provide oil to the world because they're evil. They do it because people (you and me and billions of others) demand it and benefit from it.
We can't reap the benefits and avoid the blame for our choices. (I mean, we obviously can, but that doesn't actually result in any change, so if you want to feel better but not actually change anything, have at it...)
If I pay taxes I help subsidize fossil fuels. If I get an EV its manufacturer burned fossil fuels to create it and ship it to me.
Tell me who I can vote for to change this. Tell me how I can eat without using fossil fuels. Tell me how I can work without using fossil fuels. Tell me what choices I can make so that I am not to blame.
There is no such choice. I literally cannot avoid fossil fuels.
Maybe if we could all agree that the fault is indeed with fossil fuel companies, who not only provide oil but also lobby the government to prevent us from moving away from it. Maybe then, we could have the actual change you are clearly so invested in.
Must the oil companies both continue to reliably supply oil and ensure that society obsoletes them? There are order of magnitude 20 million people working in oil, gas, and coal. Perhaps they could continue to focus on that and the other 7.85 billion people on the planet could take up the responsibility to migrate society off of those fuels rather than making those 20 million people have to do both jobs?
Obviously this question deserves more thorough and qualified treatment than I could give, but it doesn't seem outlandish to expect that the corporation should lose some 'rights' much like people do when they face consequences for crimes.
I would want the executives in this case to face personal consequences, like jail time, and I would want to e.g., prevent oil companies from lobbying, or nationalize them, or something to similar effect.
> the other 7.85 billion people on the planet could take up the responsibility
Something I haven't been able to communicate to you this thread, despite my best efforts, is that taking that responsibility is impossible when fossil fuel companies have mountains of money and power. Fossil fuel companies are worth more to elected representatives than constituents, and they have a vested interest in promoting fossil fuels in all sectors of society. They aren't meekly and reluctantly providing oil to us nasty consumers, they do their best to create and grow markets for their products. They are already doing 2 jobs: supply oil and ensure society doesn't obsolete them.
You speak as if people have always known fossil fuels cause climate change and simply like to act against their best interests, or that climate change is in our best interests. In my opinion, neither is true, and given that Exxon actively suppressed their own research on the matter, I think they would agree with me.
The knowledge of CO2 (and water vapor) acting as an insulating blanket and having a warming effect on the planet was known years before the first oil well was ever drilled and over a dozen years before Standard Oil (which eventually became Exxon and later ExxonMobil) was even founded.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#:~:text=Eunice%20Foote
It was also well known before Standard Oil's founding that the complete combustion of hydrocarbons emits primarily CO2 and water vapor.
Portraying Exxon as being the sole possessors of secret knowledge of this phenomenon is grossly inaccurate IMO.
You're telling me people in power in 1923 knew that human oil consumption was causing climate change that would be detrimental to human life? If you asked Congress today many wouldn't agree with you, and I'm sure some of them sincerely believe there's no problem. Do you think voters knew back then? If this was common knowledge, why did Exxon have to suppress anything?
From the OP:
> Exxon knew of the dangers of global heating from at least the 1970s, with other oil industry bodies knowing of the risk even earlier, from around the 1950s. They forcefully and successfully mobilized against the science to stymie any action to reduce fossil fuel use.
My original argument was that this is evil and every individual in charge of suppressing this information and continuing to advocate for fossil fuel use deserves punishment. Do you agree? Because throughout this conversation what I've understood from your comments is that you think they did nothing wrong because people consume oil.
Based on everything I know, I vehemently disagree. We don't punish "evil"; we punish law-breaking; this is a very good thing for individuals in a free society to be able to rely upon.
We have a justice system based on laws, not (directly*) on morality. This is important, especially given the propensity for morality to shift and evolve in its interpretation and for similar actions by different people, or similar actions by the same people at different times, to be morally judged differently.
If it was legal for Exxon to not share their proprietary knowledge (that there was no legal obligation for them to publish their knowledge), there's no legal basis for punishment. I believe that's the exact situation that we're in, which is why there are outrage articles published (moral judgments) but not indictments (prelude to legal judgments).
I believe that's responsive to your major point.
On your more minor point:
> You're telling me people in power in 1923 knew that human oil consumption was causing climate change that would be detrimental to human life?
I believe that that knowledge was available within the body of scientific knowledge, based on the evidence I provided above. I can't prove one way or the other, therefore will not surmise, what "people in power" nor voters did or didn't know, on average, in 1923.
* Our laws are loosely based upon on our morality, but there's a critically important level of indirection and specificity that precludes persecution of people based on an implied moral proscription rather than a codified legal proscription.
Not really, because while I am talking about how things ought to be, you are talking about how things are. Once again my point: this was evil and the people responsible deserve punishment. Saying they did nothing illegal is irrelevant since, as you say, laws and morality are not equivalent. If you don't believe evil should be punished, then you believe old laws should never change and new ones shouldn't be created. As you say, morality changes, so then why would laws remain unchangeable? How can we ever codify moral standards when people get more upset at outrage than at the immoral act?
There's no legal culpability in this case, but if society follows your lead there wouldn't be legal culpability in any future cases either. Next time an article reveals Johnson & Johnson has been knowingly putting poison in its baby powder or something like that, will you once more argue against the outrage and claim there's no legal culpability and the consumers could have been testing their baby powder, so really it's their fault?
> available within the body of scientific knowledge, based on the evidence I provided
Not really, the evidence you provided only said people knew CO2 could heat the world, but nothing about its effects on mankind (which Exxon did know about, per the previous leaks). And as you admit, you can't know if any voter or policy-maker actually knew. So how are we responsible for allowing Exxon's actions again?
I'm finished with this discussion, your nihilism is exhausting.
We don't expect murderers to turn themselves in, we pay police forces to find them. But it's not hypocritical to call murderers evil, and it's not unreasonable to expect that people should not murder.