This article's writer seems to be trying to imply that businesses are not humans. And, strictly speaking, he is correct: a business is not a human being. However, a business is comprised of human...
To the first point, people seem to view companies as conscious entities – as living, breathing organisms with thoughts, feelings, intentions and motives.
What this means is that people are likely to attribute distinctly human motives to business actions that are the product of entirely different processes.
This article's writer seems to be trying to imply that businesses are not humans. And, strictly speaking, he is correct: a business is not a human being. However, a business is comprised of human beings: the owners, the executives, and the employees are all human beings. They are behaving as humans, making decisions based on human motives. You don't get to point to a business and say that it did these things on its own without any involvement by humans. Humans are intimately involved in everything a business does.
So, when a business profits at the expense of its customers, this is one set of humans benefitting from their interactions with another set of humans. Business is humanity in action, not some esoteric inhuman process.
Yes. However, the writer is trying to tell us that business are not individuals in order to absolve those businesses of any moral responsibility for their actions: The implication of this...
What the article tried to point at, is that we tend to see a business as if it was an individual.
Yes. However, the writer is trying to tell us that business are not individuals in order to absolve those businesses of any moral responsibility for their actions:
Because we mentally view firms as people, this is seen as a wilful act – a deliberate attempt to take advantage of customers – and it violates an important norm of interpersonal conduct, a moral norm even, that forbids benefiting at another’s expense.
The implication of this paragraph (and of the article as a whole) is that businesses do not and can not perform wilful acts: there can be no deliberate attempt to take advantage of customers where there is no will to make deliberate choices. These actions are implied to be unwilled and non-deliberate.
However, that doesn't work when you realise that every decision supposedly made by a non-corporeal business which has no moral agency was actually made by a flesh-and-blood human who most certainly does have moral agency. For example, a decision to raise prices will be made by a human being (or a group of human beings), not by the business. If the business attempts to take advantage of its customers by raising prices too high, that decision is made by real human beings, not by a non-corporeal non-moral legal entity.
There are real human beings behind a business, making its decisions. There are moral agents making these decisions. We can hold those people responsible for those decisions. It is not a mistake to attribute moral blame to a business, because it consists of moral agents.
This conundrum is the source of the solution. We see the inklings of an alternative model in charitable promotions wherein a portion of a purchase is given to a good cause. People respond...
What’s more, businesses bear the burden of the risk in offering products for consumers’ consideration; the products that they make available to us are often a tremendous source of value in our lives; and, ultimately, the only reason companies develop and offer such products is to make a profit. Otherwise, what would be the point of going into business?
This conundrum is the source of the solution. We see the inklings of an alternative model in charitable promotions wherein a portion of a purchase is given to a good cause.
People respond positively when they feel like their consumerism (and to a greater extent, labor) go towards something more than profit. This has become more common with the advent of the triple-bottom line value paradigm. Right now this inkling gives us something along the lines of profit-motivated firms doing social and environmental good secondarily or as a by-product.
We need a new culture in business -- one that sees firms started for a good cause with revenues given less priority.
The essence of the inadequacy is that is based on an artificial system of value which is decoupled from actual values. It motives people towards something that isn't actually worth to anything that matters. That is to say that just because you are profitable doesn't mean your work is worth doing.
This question makes sense only in the current framework. Of course without profit motive businesses would not exist (as we know them today). The alternative to production for profit is production...
the only reason companies develop and offer such products is to make a profit. Otherwise, what would be the point of going into business?
This question makes sense only in the current framework. Of course without profit motive businesses would not exist (as we know them today).
The alternative to production for profit is production for use. That is to produce based on how much is required and then utilize the goods instead of making them solely in hope of selling them to others.
This article's writer seems to be trying to imply that businesses are not humans. And, strictly speaking, he is correct: a business is not a human being. However, a business is comprised of human beings: the owners, the executives, and the employees are all human beings. They are behaving as humans, making decisions based on human motives. You don't get to point to a business and say that it did these things on its own without any involvement by humans. Humans are intimately involved in everything a business does.
So, when a business profits at the expense of its customers, this is one set of humans benefitting from their interactions with another set of humans. Business is humanity in action, not some esoteric inhuman process.
Yes. However, the writer is trying to tell us that business are not individuals in order to absolve those businesses of any moral responsibility for their actions:
The implication of this paragraph (and of the article as a whole) is that businesses do not and can not perform wilful acts: there can be no deliberate attempt to take advantage of customers where there is no will to make deliberate choices. These actions are implied to be unwilled and non-deliberate.
However, that doesn't work when you realise that every decision supposedly made by a non-corporeal business which has no moral agency was actually made by a flesh-and-blood human who most certainly does have moral agency. For example, a decision to raise prices will be made by a human being (or a group of human beings), not by the business. If the business attempts to take advantage of its customers by raising prices too high, that decision is made by real human beings, not by a non-corporeal non-moral legal entity.
There are real human beings behind a business, making its decisions. There are moral agents making these decisions. We can hold those people responsible for those decisions. It is not a mistake to attribute moral blame to a business, because it consists of moral agents.
This conundrum is the source of the solution. We see the inklings of an alternative model in charitable promotions wherein a portion of a purchase is given to a good cause.
People respond positively when they feel like their consumerism (and to a greater extent, labor) go towards something more than profit. This has become more common with the advent of the triple-bottom line value paradigm. Right now this inkling gives us something along the lines of profit-motivated firms doing social and environmental good secondarily or as a by-product.
We need a new culture in business -- one that sees firms started for a good cause with revenues given less priority.
The essence of the inadequacy is that is based on an artificial system of value which is decoupled from actual values. It motives people towards something that isn't actually worth to anything that matters. That is to say that just because you are profitable doesn't mean your work is worth doing.
This question makes sense only in the current framework. Of course without profit motive businesses would not exist (as we know them today).
The alternative to production for profit is production for use. That is to produce based on how much is required and then utilize the goods instead of making them solely in hope of selling them to others.