tell me, what do you disagree with? why do you disagree with it? what evidence do you have to back up your assertions?
if i am wrong correct me. but to brandish me as ignorant because you don't agree with what i say is just you, spreading dogma.
if IBM didn't do it, another company would have done it.
How do you know that? How can you prove that? Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point.Here's another thing you said:
IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but
it is not a person [...] but a company does not have
morals.
If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) people have morality, on what basis are you claiming IBM doesn't (read: can't) have morals? A collection of people acting on behalf of a corporation does not absolve that corporation from any moral corruption it causes.You speak about this as if you've never read any of the comprehensive literature on business ethics. I think you're being downvoted because you're coming off arrogant in a topic (business ethics) you don't project knowing much about.
come on, there's no need to be disingenuous - of course i cannot prove that.
> Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point.
why? i don't believe that it's unreasonable to believe that another company would pick up a contract like that.
> If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) people have morality, on what basis are you claiming IBM doesn't (read: can't) have morals? A collection of people acting on behalf of a corporation does not absolve that corporation from any moral corruption it causes.
it's simple, being immoral allows more profits to be made. companies do this all the time. how many companies have token offices in remote islands? it's legal. if they don't do it, they're literally leaving money on the table. why would they not do it?
> You speak about this as if you've never read any of the comprehensive literature on business ethics.
you're correct, i haven't. i don't claim to know anything.
> I think you're being downvoted because you're coming off arrogant in a topic (business ethics) you don't project knowing much about.
most text does, i don't mean to come across as arrogant. but if people don't make an effort to correct me (and linking to an incredibly long article doesn't exactly help), how else might my opinion be changed? i don't feel that people owe me an explanation, but saying "you're wrong" and downvoting isn't.. well, it's not how i'd treat someone else, so i don't appreciate it when i am treated that way.
Is there some reason you believe corporations, composed of human beings, are exempt from the human vulnerabilities documented by people like Zimbardo and Milgram?
That's the whole problem: if someone refuses to go along with your plan, all you have to do is ask somebody else. You will be (un)pleasantly surprised at just how few people, or by extension corporations, you have to approach with your proposal. There's nothing to "prove."