Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ]If "moving the goal posts" is giving another point to consider, I'm not going to apologise for doing so. I accepted your employees example and moved on.

    Firstly the example was yours, i accepted your framework and showed you why corporations are right in that circumstance. Secondly there is nothing wrong with giving another point, it just seems sensible to actually respond to the answers to the first point initially. Otherwise, why ask?

    Must I really explain my reasoning for not thinking it's morally justifiable for a corporation to destroy the ancient enivornment and way of life of a group of native people in order to chase more $$?

    Quite simple really. I think some things are more important than money.
    This your mistake, an all too common one. You view it economcially not morally. You see money, i see freedom. Money is the tool and the effect of having freedom. I support freedom and so the right to make money.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I'm not sure if I'm missing something. Can you apply comparitive advantage to the example of BP / Gwich'in Nation to illustrate it to me?
    Cultures have come and gone for thousands of years. Why should their preservation be a higher priority than economic efficiency and prosperity?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You see money, i see freedom.
    Freedom for who though? A comparitively tiny number; shareholders and directors. Who pays for the cost of this 'freedom', for example the damage done to the environment?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Cultures have come and gone for thousands of years. Why should their preservation be a higher priority than economic efficiency and prosperity?
    In the end, I guess it comes down to whether you value ancient cultures over the bank balances of shareholders.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    In the end, I guess it comes down to whether you value ancient cultures over the bank balances of shareholders.
    Corporations drive down costs, thereby benefitting the consumer, and everyone is a consumer. Not everyone wishes to bankrupt themselves in order to preserve their culture. If the tribe in question values their culture enough, it can buy the land for itself to prevent development.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Corporations drive down costs, thereby benefitting the consumer, and everyone is a consumer. Not everyone wishes to bankrupt themselves in order to preserve their culture.
    Why would the tribe in question bankrupt themselves by resisting the moves of BP to destroy their habitat? They've lived in the same way for thousands of years, it's not as if they require the BP to continue living.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Why would the tribe in question bankrupt themselves by resisting the moves of BP to destroy their habitat? They've lived in the same way for thousands of years, it's not as if they require the BP to continue living.
    If they don't own the land, what right do they have to infringe on BP's private property rights? Should we always give preservation precedence of prosperity?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    If they don't own the land, what right do they have to infringe on BP's private property rights?
    I'm not so much dealing with 'rights', I'm more interested in how far it is moral to destroy an ancient habitat in the chase for money. My argument is mainly based on the feeling of injustice I feel when reading about this type of thing. However the fact is that corporations do not need to concern themselves with anything except profit, I am aware of this but find it regretable at times.

    (Original post by Bismark)
    Should we always give preservation precedence of prosperity?
    I like to avoid using words such as "always" as I find its use tends to negate one's ability to judge things on a case by case basis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't forget that many corporations also preserve, create and export culture within the market place. From tourism to restaurant franchises and the entertainment industry.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    Don't forget that many corporations also preserve, create and export culture within the market place. From tourism to restaurant franchises and the entertainment industry.
    Don't worry, I'm not so dogmatic in that I view things entirely in black and white.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Freedom for who though? A comparitively tiny number; shareholders and directors. Who pays for the cost of this 'freedom', for example the damage done to the environment?

    Millions of people are shareholders thanks to Thatchers privatisation program. Those who do not have shares still benefit from this freedom as it was freedom which allowed corporations to emerge in the first place and since you don't wish to destroy them i assume you agree.

    People don't have a right to prevent others from making money just because they fear for their way of life. You advocate positive liberty, whereas i support negative liberty. + lib is a slippery slope towards totalitarianism as Berlin argues.

    Once again you have changed the example, first it was emplyyes than it was cultures now its the environement!!

    You'll find that corporations respect the environment much more than the media gives them credit. Globalisation spreads green technology e.g companies which locate abroad take their clean tech with them because its cheaper than having to get new tech when environment legisaltion is past later on. It is government which does alot of pollution not corporations, just look at the effect CAP has had on the countryside e.g increased peesticides and fewer hedgerows. Also when people get richer they can afford to be cleaner when it comes to the environment. Companies make us rich.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Under what circumstances would you say corporations should consider those other than their shareholders? Ever?

    Btw I really don't get what your problem with me coming up with new examples is, it's called moving the debate along.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I'm not so much dealing with 'rights', I'm more interested in how far it is moral to destroy an ancient habitat in the chase for money. My argument is mainly based on the feeling of injustice I feel when reading about this type of thing. However the fact is that corporations do not need to concern themselves with anything except profit, I am aware of this but find it regretable at times.
    Would you prefer that their environment was preserved and your standard of living was the same as theirs?

    I like to avoid using words such as "always" as I find its use tends to negate one's ability to judge things on a case by case basis.
    Rights either exist or they don't. You can't pick and choose when to respect someone's rights. If you don't think private entities should be able to do whatever they want to do with their property, just come out and say that you're opposed to private property. Don't beat around the bush.

    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Under what circumstances would you say corporations should consider those other than their shareholders? Ever?
    Never. If they don't do what's in their shareholder's interests, they'll go bankrupt, thereby leading to a massive loss of jobs and harming the economy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Under what circumstances would you say corporations should consider those other than their shareholders? Ever?
    Never. I have expalined this in the 'employees' example.

    Btw I really don't get what your problem with me coming up with new examples is, it's called moving the debate along.
    It's only moving the debate along if you actually counter my views on that specfic example.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Would you prefer that their environment was preserved and your standard of living was the same as theirs?

    Please explain the significance of this before I answer, I'm not 100% sure I know what you're getting at.
    Rights either exist or they don't. You can't pick and choose when to respect someone's rights. If you don't think private entities should be able to do whatever they want to do with their property, just come out and say that you're opposed to private property. Don't beat around the bush.
    Of course it's their property, I'm just saying that the fact that its their property doesn't necessarily mean that everything they do is entirely moral. The point I'm making is that I don't necessarily think something is entirely moral even if it's legal.

    Never. If they don't do what's in their shareholder's interests, they'll go bankrupt, thereby leading to a massive loss of jobs and harming the economy.
    Patricia Anderson vs. GM?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)

    It's only moving the debate along if you actually counter my views on that specfic example.
    I'm actually attempting to formulate my views rather than challenge yours, in this example. I asked you some questions and you answered them, then I moved on having noted your answer. Quite simple really,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I'm actually attempting to formulate my views rather than challenge yours, in this example. I asked you some questions and you answered them, then I moved on having noted your answer. Quite simple really,

    You don;t just note them you reject them as you are still not convined as you yourself said. Thus the question is why? The issue is not money but freedom. However you seem to support positive freedom above negative freedom. Why?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You don;t just note them you reject them as you are still not convined as you yourself said. Thus the question is why? The issue is not money but freedom. However you seem to support positive freedom above negative freedom. Why?
    To my great shame, this is the first time I've actually come across this concept and so I'll have to do some reading before I'm ready to actually answer you.

    I hope that's OK with you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Of course it's their property, I'm just saying that the fact that its their property doesn't necessarily mean that everything they do is entirely moral. The point I'm making is that I don't necessarily think something is entirely moral even if it's legal.
    Would it be "moral" if the standard of living of your country was 10 times lower than it was?

    Patricia Anderson vs. GM?
    Did she know that the car she bought had a relatively high accident rate? If yes, she's reponsible for her own decisions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Would it be "moral" if the standard of living of your country was 10 times lower than it was?
    Depends what the costs of obtaining this standard of living were.

    Did she know that the car she bought had a relatively high accident rate? If yes, she's reponsible for her own decisions
    Why did it have that relatively high accident rate?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 22, 2005

2,279

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.