I think you might have misunderstood the concept. Business really has no ethics, and it needs no ethics: its main and only goal is to make money. Government’s job is to define the ethics, and create and enforce a framework in which businesses may operate.
Comment on Netflix Resumes Advertising on X After Elon Musk Controversy
01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 11 months agoIn school I had to take Business Ethics. The processor officially renamed the course to Ethical Issues in Business, because, as he explained it in class, business has no ethics, but ethical issues arise all the time. I took it to mean that capitalism destroyed humanity, and those of us that are still left humane must deal with ethical issues in a business setting.
fosforus@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 11 months ago
The people’s job is to define ethics. The government’s job is to uphold that definition. Governments can’t be expected to define ethics on their own.
rambaroo@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This is so fucking immoral it’s enraging. As if people aren’t involved with business and business doesn’t affect people. This psychotic bullshit is how companies end up murdering people and getting away with it.
fosforus@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
murdering people
I believe murdering people is illegal, sir.
prole@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
And that’s why capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
(Assuming you aren’t misremembering): That honestly sounds like a really shitty professor.
Ethics are 100% a thing and more people need to improve their intelligence in that regard. What you CAN argue is that morality has no place in business (or engineering (or whatever)). But ethics are not morality or the law.
At this point, I think everyone and their mother is aware of the concept of The Trolley Problem. And… that is pertinent for a reason. Are you going to send the metaphorical train careening into marginalized groups, your workers, your board, or even your family? Or, the inverse of that: Are you going to do something that means you can buy your kids really awesome xmas presents, your board new cars, your workers the nice ramen, or even a moment of lessened horror for trans forlk?
And that ignores the various types of ethics. Even under utilitarianism, there are arguments that you are making a better net good for your board… if only because said marginalized groups suffer so much they will barely notice any relenting.
Improved understanding of what ethics actually are helps to understand WHY good (or more likely) bad things are happening. And it helps those who are in a position to make those decisions to make an intelligent and rational, if not necessarily good, decision.
01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 11 months ago
I didn’t say ethics had no place in business, nor that ethics wasn’t a thing. I said he renamed it, because business has no ethics. This is the same thing you were saying, but in a lot less words.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
I realize words are scary, but maybe read them when you are going to reply to someone? Rather than just assume they must agree with you.
Again, business has ethics. Balancing your fiduciary responsibilities with personal gain (and, in rare instances, societal benefit) is an ethical challenge. Do you choose to strictly follow your contractual/legal responsibilities or do you try to find a way to circumvent that for good or for ill?
Yet again: Ethics are not morality
01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 11 months ago
Lol. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the couch, didn’t they?
What you describe isn’t business ethics, it’s an ethical issues in a business setting. Look, mate. I don’t really care that you may disagree or whether you have or don’t have good reading comprehension. But leave the reddit anger on reddit. Lemmy is for discourse, not for senseless arguments.
Fal@yiffit.net 11 months ago
Yes that is an ethical challenge. But it’s not business. The challenge is how business interacts with that challenge
assembly@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I did not take business classes so limited background but if we assume that the US isn’t going to magically transition away from capitalism, we instead have to find a way to legislate a transition to a more ethical capitalism. That phrase seems to be an oxymoron but for things to not keep getting progressively worse I’m thinking we as a society need to figure out a way to make it happen. Any ideas? You seem to have at least taken a course in the matter.
andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 11 months ago
What if we transition away from capitalism non-magically?
assembly@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I mean that’s probably the preferred path but I can’t see how that realistically happens. There are too many individuals globally with too much to lose that will think their loss of capital is worth bringing down the whole human race. I’m sure they would rather see the world in ashes rather than succeed under an alternate system where they may not be on top.
colforge@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s not even about being on top or being worried about losing status - I’d be fine with giving up what little I have to see a better world. The problem is that a pivot away from capitalism isn’t going to happen without violent revolution, because it would absolutely be met with violent resistance.
I wouldn’t support something that would be guaranteed to thrust my children and grandchildren into a world of chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy that would unavoidably arise during and potentially after a revolution of that scale. And someone has to be holding the levers of power in the end, and how do we guarantee that we don’t just end up shuffling the deck around but playing the exact same game?
It’s easy to be idealistic and say “this isn’t working” but it’s a whole lot harder to convince enough people to dismantle it and deal with the consequences rather than attempt to effect incremental change over a long term.
andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 11 months ago
I think there’s a credible case to be made that moving toward socialism has benefits even for the wealthy, and that the change doesn’t have to be presented as the end of capitalism.
fosforus@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
No, let’s not. Or at least figure out a better theory this time.
prole@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Why don’t you take a list of countries by quality of life from some point in the past decade or two, and see which nations seem to always top it.