is it ethical ?

kshegunov

@AnneRanch's core logic is, "Company XYZ makes profit, therefore it is unethical for Company XYZ to ask me to submit bug reports"

<facepalm>
That's what this thread's about?
LOL, don't I feel silly now ...

I disagree with this logic.

So do I.

Westley Martin

It is absolutely ethical for a "for profit" organization to ask for any form of contribution.

Kent-Dorfman

there is an old saying: "business ethics is an oxy-moron"...The function of business is to maximimize profit while minimizing output/work. Anyone who thinks ethics and business are compatible is quite naive.

JKSH

@Kent-Dorfman said in is it ethical ?:

The function of business is to maximimize profit while minimizing output/work.

That's quite an unsustainable way to run a business. Think of the triple bottom line instead.

kshegunov

@JKSH said in is it ethical ?:

@Kent-Dorfman said in is it ethical ?:

The function of business is to maximimize profit while minimizing output/work.

That's quite an unsustainable way to run a business. Think of the triple bottom line instead.

This wasn't the original point. Some animals, just as some companies, have/are/will eat themselves out of existence. It isn't about sustainability to begin with.

JKSH

@kshegunov said in is it ethical ?:

This wasn't the original point. Some animals, just as some companies, have/are/will eat themselves out of existence. It isn't about sustainability to begin with.

I consider "sustainable" a superset of "ethical". @Kent-Dorfman claims that businesses cannot be ethical because of the bottom line; I say that shifting focus from the economic bottom line to the triple bottom line is a good way to start doing ethical business. Even though the original proponent sees problems with current implementations, business systems are changing.

kshegunov

@JKSH said in is it ethical ?:

I consider "sustainable" a superset of "ethical".

I don't. You could sustain a business for a long time/forever without being ethical.

@Kent-Dorfman claims that businesses cannot be ethical because of the bottom line

They could be, although as far as I understand the claim, they need not be, nor are they required to to exist and grow, which I agree with. The two things are independent. Also putting the label "ethical" to a mechanical entity is rather dubious. It's like saying that your factory robot should be more kind, or more ethical. It simply isn't applicable.

JKSH

@kshegunov said in is it ethical ?:

They could be, although as far as I understand the claim, they need not be, nor are they required to to exist and grow

Nope. "Anyone who thinks ethics and business are compatible is quite naive" does not say that "a business can be -- but doesn't need to be -- run ethically". It clearly says that "businesses can never be run ethically".

To reiterate and rephrase my answer to that claim: Running a business in a manner that is economically, socially, and ecologically sustainable is one way to start running a business ethically. (This is my ∃ counterexample to @Kent-Dorfman's ∀)

It's like saying that your factory robot should be more kind, or more ethical.

I'm not asking the robot to be kinder. I'm asking the robot's owner/programmer/operator to take additional steps to ensure that the robot doesn't rip off someone's limb (or form Skynet), even if taking those steps increases the costs of implementing/running the robot and cuts into profits.

Also putting the label "ethical" to a mechanical entity is rather dubious.

The decisions made by a business' directors can certainly be ethical, unethical, or various shades of gray.

I consider "sustainable" a superset of "ethical".

I don't. You could sustain a business for a long time/forever without being ethical.... The two things are independent.

We're using different meanings of the term "sustainable" here. I'm talking about the business sustaining itself, and the land/air/sea that hosts the business, and guarding the interests of multitudes of stakeholders (not just the shareholders), all at the same time. You're talking about the business sustaining itself in isolation.

But anyway, that's beside the point, like you said. Even if "sustainable" is independent of "ethical", that still doesn't invalidate my answer to the claim that "businesses can never be run ethically".

kshegunov

@JKSH said in is it ethical ?:

Nope. "Anyone who thinks ethics and business are compatible is quite naive" does not say that "a business can be -- but doesn't need to be -- run ethically". It clearly says that "businesses can never be run ethically".

To reiterate and rephrase my answer to that claim: Running a business in a manner that is economically, socially, and ecologically sustainable is one way to start running a business ethically. (This is my ∃ counterexample to @Kent-Dorfman's ∀)

Fair point. Although I don't consider a business to be a cohesive single-minded entity, nor that you could assign social attributes to it. At least to me, which I believe is @Kent-Dorfman's point too, a business has one purpose to exist (one purpose to rule them all, if you will) - to make money for its owner.

I'm not asking the robot to be kinder. I'm asking the robot's owner/programmer/operator to take additional steps to ensure that the robot doesn't rip off someone's limb (or form Skynet), even if taking those steps increases the costs of implementing/running the robot and cuts into profits.

Businesses already do consider not killing people, mostly. Elsewise they run the risk of getting forcefully prosecuted and terminated.

The decisions made by a business' directors can certainly be ethical, unethical, or various shades of gray.

Various shades of gray it is. However consider something terrible, like a coal mining company, shall they run their operations for free as coal is the terrible industry killing thousands of people worldwide (mostly indirectly)? So is it ethical to have a mining company to begin with? It ain't sustainable by your definition, shall we close all of them, or condemn them somehow from our warm(-ish) coal-powered homes?

We're using different meanings of the term "sustainable" here. I'm talking about the business sustaining itself, and the land/air/sea that hosts the business, and guarding the interests of multitudes of stakeholders (not just the shareholders), all at the same time. You're talking about the business sustaining itself in isolation.

^ See above argument.
Also consider a company that makes/sells explosives, weapons, digs for anything basically (same concerns as with coal), sells medical equipment (imagine you need it, but you don't have enough money to pay); the list goes on forever.

But anyway, that's beside the point, like you said. Even if "sustainable" is independent of "ethical", that still doesn't invalidate my answer to the claim that "businesses can never be run ethically".

I guess, if you consider ethics a category applicable to legal entities, which I (still) don't.

JKSH

@kshegunov said in is it ethical ?:

At least to me, which I believe is @Kent-Dorfman's point too, a business has one purpose to exist (one purpose to rule them all, if you will) - to make money for its owner.

I agree that a business' primary purpose is to make profit too. I don't agree that this primary purpose should be pursued at all costs.

@Kent-Dorfman's argument is "Behaving ethically reduces profit, therefore ethics has no place in business." This is quite different to your argument that "Ethics does not apply to entities that are not natural persons".

Businesses already do consider not killing people, mostly. Elsewise they run the risk of getting forcefully prosecuted and terminated.

Precisely. This shows that ethical considerations are codified in law and applied to businesses, no? (I'm presuming that you agree that "Avoid injuring or killing people" is ethical. Same goes for "Always use accurate scales for your customers, never rig scales" and even "Don't pressure your staff into begrudgingly working unpaid overtime".)

Anyway, the key phrase in my robot example was "even if taking those steps increases the costs... and cuts into profits". In other words, the primary purpose of making money can and should be guided by other (ethical) considerations.

I don't consider a business to be a cohesive single-minded entity, nor that you could assign social attributes to it.

...

I guess, if you consider ethics a category applicable to legal entities, which I (still) don't.

That's OK. Regardless of our difference in opinion there, can you accept the following?

A business can be run in an ethical or unethical manner (Example: using rigged scales to unethically increase profits vs. using accurate scales always).
A business should be run in an ethical manner even if it means less money is then made as a result.

'Cos I don't care whether or not it makes sense to stick a label on a business/company. I care about the side-effects of the business' money-making process.

consider something terrible, like a coal mining company, shall they run their operations for free as coal is the terrible industry killing thousands of people worldwide (mostly indirectly)?

If a business is proven to contribute to deaths, then how much it charges for its services is irrelevant. At the very least, it needs to take steps to reduce those deaths, pronto. If it won't do that voluntarily, then it is continuing to operate unethically so the law and/or society needs to ensure that continuing as-is leads to the business "getting forcefully prosecuted and terminated" (Shegunov, 2021).

It ain't sustainable by your definition, shall we close all of them, or condemn them somehow from our warm(-ish) coal-powered homes?

Short answer: If an action reduces those deaths, then let's pursue that.

Long answer: Coal dependence and its effects is a wicked problem that can't be solved in a forum post. When I mentioned the "interests of a multitude of stakeholders" before, that list here includes the towns/communities whose existence currently depends on the operation of the coal mine, the people who currently depend on burning coal to avoid freezing in winter, the people who are currently losing their homes/livelihoods/lives to the changing climate that coal extraction+use is contributing to, among countless others.

So is it ethical to have a mining company to begin with?

I don't understand this question. Care to clarify your underlying question?

Also consider a company that makes/sells explosives, weapons, digs for anything basically (same concerns as with coal), sells medical equipment (imagine you need it, but you don't have enough money to pay); the list goes on forever.

"the list goes on forever" -- This has no bearing on whether or not ethics apply. "Ridiculously difficult" != "Shouldn't do".