Here in the UK we have had 'corporate manslaughter' on the statute books for the last decade, being homicide by a corporation. The Health & Safety Executive issue advice on it If homicide is involved, then surely morality is too, if only as a 'failure of a duty of care'.

Interesting. Has it been exercised? Do you know of a case of it?

A corporation is a group which is treated as an individual in the eyes of the law. — Mongrel

That's right, but... maybe the law is an ass.

Corporations can be a means to at partially or totally shield individuals from the consequences of their acts, and others' acts on their behalf. Take the Bhopal, India gas poisoning:

It occurred on the night of 2–3 December 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Over 500,000 people were exposed to methyl isocyanate gas and other chemicals. The highly toxic cloud made its way into and around the shanty towns located near the plant.

The gas killed thousands and injured scores of thousands of people:

The government of Madhya Pradesh confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release. A government affidavit in 2006 stated that the leak caused 558,125 injuries, including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.[4] Others estimate that 8,000 died within two weeks, and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas-related diseases.

"Accidents happen" but accidents are more likely when maintenance is minimal, when safety systems are turned off, and when large quantities of highly toxic stuff is stored and/or manufactured in densely populated areas.

Union Carbide Corporation's stockholders (and financial beneficiaries) were not held liable, and for all practical purposes, neither were the various employees of the corporation who had a duty to maintain the plant (like managers who approve or deny work orders in corporate headquarters).

Whether morality is involved is debatable. Ciceronianus says no. — Mongrel

Morality is involved regardless of what Ciceronianus says.

If India Inc. doesn't know how to take care of itself, it should hire a lawyer. Of course that kind of conflict can drive potential employers elsewhere, so India might have a hard choice to make. Whining isn't a productive choice.

Cic was just saying that people misunderstand if they think the law is about morality. The concept of a corporation is legal technology... that was my point.

If India Inc. doesn't know how to take care of itself, it should hire a lawyer. Of course that kind of conflict can drive potential employers elsewhere, so India might have a hard choice to make. Whining isn't a productive choice. — Mongrel

Really? Amazing.

The law is often not a matter of morality. For instance, laws specifying how real estate property is transferred from one person to another, or rules defining what "jam" is, as opposed to a "spread" aren't loaded with a lot of morality. But the Nuremberg laws which the Nazi's passed to strip Jews of property, access to public places, careers--life itself--can't be described as mere "legal technology". The intent, texts, and implementation of the law was entirely immoral. So also were American laws segregating whites and blacks. So are a lot of laws.

Are you saying that corporate law is immoral?

I mentioned earlier that the concept was a significant factor in the emergence of European nation states. If you do mean to say that the concept of the corporation is immoral, you're indicting the whole global shebang.

I would counter that it's not corporations. They just act in their own interests. It's the lack of global law that allows them to exploit us munchkins.

Are you saying that corporate law is immoral?

I mentioned earlier that the concept was a significant factor in the emergence of European nation states. If you do mean to say that the concept of the corporation is immoral, you're indicting the whole global shebang.

I would counter that it's not corporations. They just act in their own interests. It's the lack of global law that allows them to exploit us munchkins. — Mongrel

BC can speak for himself, but I took him to be saying that corporate law was amoral, in that it deals with certain transactional issues which don't really touch upon morality (unlike, say, criminal law).

There are many cases of corporate manslaughter in the UK now, yes. You can browse them on this law firm's specialist website. The cases mostly focus on grossly negligent health and safety in the workplace. But there are also cases where an anesthetist and the hospital trust were charged in relation to a woman's death in hospital (found not guilty) and a care home where a woman died of ill-health brought on by malnutrition and neglect.

Are you saying that corporate law is immoral? — Mongrel

The consequences can be immoral. A law that shields individuals for their immoral acts under the cloak of a corporation, for instance, could be immoral.

A law (or interpretation of a law) which grants to corporations personhood, a right to free speech, and so forth, could be immoral. For instance, consider the case of Citizens United:

What is the Citizens United decision?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. Wikipedia

The law that says a corporation is an individual is absurd, and may (will probably) have moral consequences. Unions aren't individuals either, of course.

quote="Mongrel;61390"]I mentioned earlier that the concept was a significant factor in the emergence of European nation states. If you do mean to say that the concept of the corporation is immoral, you're indicting the whole global shebang.[/quote]

I am not saying that the corporation is inherently immoral or inherently good. It depends... (as questions of morality always do).

The first corporations, and the first stock issued, and the first stock holders are one thing. Today's corporations valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars, are something else. They have interlocking directorates (they share strategic board of director members), they often have near monopolies on essential products, they have enormous economic, social, and political clout, and they employ million of people. A pea and a watermelons are both fruits, but there is a hell of a lot of difference between the two. Ditto for the first and the latest corporations.

I would counter that it's not corporations. They just act in their own interests. It's the lack of global law that allows them to exploit us munchkins.[/quote]

Exploiting us munchkins is in the best interests of corporations. Making a profit (generally by exploiting workers) is their raison d'être.

I am not saying that the corporation is inherently immoral or inherently good. It depends... (as questions of morality always do).

The first corporations, and the first stock issued, and the first stock holders are one thing. Today's corporations valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars, are something else. They have interlocking directorates (they share strategic board of director members), they often have near monopolies on essential products, they have enormous economic, social, and political clout, and they employ million of people. A pea and a watermelons are both fruits, but there is a hell of a lot of difference between the two. Ditto for the first and the latest corporations. — Bitter Crank

If the concept of "corporation", allows for corporations to exist in an immoral way, then it follows that the concept of "corporation" is an immoral concept.

The law that says a corporation is an individual is absurd, and may (will probably) have moral consequences. — Bitter Crank

I'm not a lawyer. I just know some historians say the root of the concept is exactly that: a corporation is a group that is treated as an individual under the law.

Exploiting us munchkins is in the best interests of corporations. Making a profit (generally by exploiting workers) is their raison d'être. — Bitter Crank

For the fun of it, let's consider what we know about a totally free market. I think we'd agree that's a fair description of the global economy.

Mongrel and Bittercrank are two companies in direct competition providing the global market with windmill parts.

About 15% of Mongrel's parts are made by pink-faced hippies in Oregon and everybody knows about that because Mongrel advertises the hell out of it. The rest of her parts are manufactured in countries that have no child labor laws and she does work those little munchkins to the bone.

Bittercrank has plunged his flag deep into the higher moral ground by refusing to employ any children and holding to (pre-Trump) OSHA and EPA standards even in countries where he doesn't have to. He's a really moral corporation. He even cares about his CO2 footprint. Unfortunately Mongrel wiped the pavement with him in the market and he went out of business (even though his parts were higher in quality.)

Mongrel smiles her little wicked witch smile to observe that countries around the world are jumping at the chance to have her come in and provide a little food and shelter for their munchkins. If she accidently kills a few thousand of them.. oops.

It's just survival of the fittest. Could the environment change to favor a more moral corporation (like poor Bittercrank)? Of course. Look at the mechanics of the advent of child labor laws in the US and you see what's required. Centralized authority; a global government.

What are the chances of that? With the binding power of a new global religion, I could see it. Maybe if aliens invaded. Otherwise.. I doubt it. What do you think?

If the concept of "corporation", allows for corporations to exist in an immoral way, then it follows that the concept of "corporation" is an immoral concept. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm willing to entertain the notion that the concept of the "corporation" is immoral if it shields its owners, office holders and management from the law. Takata airbags, for instance, were not as safe as advertised, and it may be that this was known for quite some time by various corporations. in the case of VW, diesel pollution control equipment was deliberately made deceptive and dysfunctional. The corporation's treasuries are being depleted by fines, (some -- not a lot proportionate to their profitability) but I suspect that few of the management who aided and abetted VW's fraud, and none of the stockholders who profited by the fraud, will be punished.

BC can speak for himself, but I took him to be saying that corporate law was amoral, in that it deals with certain transactional issues which don't really touch upon morality (unlike, say, criminal law). — Arkady

I agree that corporate law is basically amoral. It's aim is to create a stable environment for business, right?

a totally free market. I think we'd agree that's a fair description of the global economy. — Mongrel

I'd agree to no such malarky.

Mongrel Enterprises, Inc. makes her contaminating windmills by not merely exploiting labor, but by exploiting the most vulnerable labor in the most degraded economic settings. She externalizes the environmental costs by flushing all of the toxic wastes from the factory into the Long Dong River, thus fucking over her unfortunate employees a second time around. The various toxic fumes which outgas from the plastics and glues used in her repellant product are not even pushed out with a fan. She just let's the miasma build up in the plant. The kiddies are dead meat anyway. (What does Madam Mongrel care? She wouldn't think of ever actually walking through this toxic shit hole.)

There are other reasons why Mongrel Enterprises is doing well. She located her malignant plants in a country that granted favorable trade deals. This SE Asian Tiger won the race to the bottom, taking away the crown of filth from Bangladesh. Not only that, Mongrel Enterprises' Country of Origin is run by a grotesque conservative party that is virulently anti-working class, anti-union, and (when you get right down to it) anti-human, who grants very favorable tax treatment to companies that assist them in their War on the Working Class.

True enough, Kranking Wind wasn't able to compete with Mongrel Enterprises criminal operations in the US market. Instead, he relocated the company to the European Union where his fine environmental and labor record led to his being showered by laurel crowns and contracts for windmills all over the globe.

In the end he died happy with a halo around his head. He went to heaven (even though he was a socialist atheist) and Mongrel went to hell (even though she was a capitalist evangelical).

Mongrel sometimes wonders if the Crankster, seated at the right hand of God, might spare a cup of water for her parched tongue. Meanwhile she's reading Nietzsche and making diabolical plans for her reincarnation. Definitely something Chinese.

Kung pao, perhaps?

I agree that corporate law is basically amoral. It's aim is to create a stable environment for business, right? — Mongrel

There's no such thing as an amoral law. If the law is designed to "create" some sort of environment, with disregard for morality, it is immoral. Having disregard for moral principles is not a case of being amoral, it is a case of bring immoral.

Accidental? Maybe 'accident' isn't quite the right term. The state created the template of corporations and upon formal application and payment of fees, grants them a license to do business--as a stock-issuing corporation, for instance.
1d — Bitter Crank

I'm pretty sure I'm saying what I intend to say but might be a translation thing, so let my try to explain. It's the underlying relationships between people that gives the corporation its identity and structure, without them there would be no corporation. As such we should be concerned with the actual relations and not the abstraction. The political power of the corporation is vested in the corporate leadership, whereas it derives that power from the economic efforts of all the people in its structure. It's a predominantly undemocratic system in that the shareholders decide on the corporate leadership who in turn have a vested interest in maximising shareholder value, that is, short term profit, whereas the power is derived from an unheard mass of people.

Now, if we then look into the history of the corporation, it becomes even more interesting. The corporation originally was awarded a charter "by the people" to build or pursue something of social value and in return they were granted limited liability. There was no right to profit for the shareholders as the shareholders invested because of the secondary effects of what the corporation did. For instance, a bridge might reward people on both sides with increased commerce, the increased commerce could be the effective return and as such a reason for them to in vest in Bridge inc.

Well, I would totally disagree that corporations are accidental. They consist of humans after all, and are therefore the result of human endevour and human decisions. — Ralph Luther

See above.

Explain, why you cannot assume, that this is actually the case? Many of friends are entrepeneurs in IT and finance. And over the last couple of years our discussion base shifted, from idealists, who wanted to make the world a better place, to more practical points of interests.

Anything that has any relation to you alters you. Your perception and your deliberation are in constant change, even of you do not notice it. So why should the relation between corporation-employees and corporation-goverment be any different? — Ralph Luther

This seems quite obvious. The interests of shareholders (who elect corporate leadership) are not aligned with wage-income employees. The directors will pursue policies that benefit the bottom line (or they'll get sacked) and short-term profitability to ensure shareholder value. An employee, especially a dependent one, is not benefitted from short-term profitability but long term stability. Profits are important, and lower wages a good way of increasing them. Not for the benefit of the employee. The same for health and safety standards. And that's just internal examples.

If we look externally, then we see that profits are increased if corporate taxes are lowered and dividend taxes are lowered. But taxes are used to sustain a public infrastructure that corporations use as much, if not more, than citizens in their private time. That public infrastructure will therefore necessarily deteriorate or regular people will have to pay the difference in other taxes (VAT and income tax). Again, the employee is worse off.

The few times that interests do align it's usually for the wrong reason: e.g. not because it's the right thing to do but because it would increase profits.

So yes, socially it is unacceptable that corporations have acquired many rights that have translated into impressive political influence and we should be dismantling that. Precisely because the corporation is accidental, e.g. there's no reason the workers couldn't be working for a totally different company making totally different things, we shouldn't accord it with so much power where that power is by and large wielded for a very limited goal with basically no ethical dimension whatsoever. It is no surprise that politics often degenerates into "what is good for the economy?" instead of "what is good for society?" So a particular measure will increase wages, or increase GDP, or increase purchasing power parity for people or increase the employment rate but these are economic results of a decision that is far more politically intricate.

GDP growth as a result of military spending, is that what we want? Yes or no? Why?
A higher minimum wage to guarantee a minimum living standard? Or should we provide benefits to guarantee a minimum living standards? Or something else? Why?
PPP is an average, who should really benefit from the increase in purchasing power? The rich, the poor or the middle class? Everybody equally? Proportionally? Why?

These are all non-economic questions and are about what type of society people want to live in. Pursuing economic abstractions undermines the necessary political discourse needed. Economic theory enables us to weigh economic outcomes of our choices but, "whatever makes the most money" is not a sensible answer to an ethical question but precisely the one corporations will give you.

There's no such thing as an amoral law. If the law is designed to "create" some sort of environment, with disregard for morality, it is immoral. Having disregard for moral principles is not a case of being amoral, it is a case of bring immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nature has no regard for moral principles. Is it immoral?

Nature is not an act of human beings, enacting laws is. I didn't think it was necessary to make that distinction. Nature has no capacity to respect moral principles so we do not judge natural acts as moral or immoral. It may be appropriate to call acts of nature amoral. But since the passing of laws is an act of human beings, which has an affect on other human beings, it wouldn't be appropriate to call these laws amoral.

Nature is not an act of human beings, enacting laws is. I didn't think it was necessary to make that distinction. Nature has no capacity to respect moral principles so we do not judge natural acts as moral or immoral. It may be appropriate to call acts of nature amoral. But since the passing of laws is an act of human beings, which has an affect on other human beings, it wouldn't be appropriate to call these laws amoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting viewpoint.