Should Corporations and Individuals be Held Accountable to the Same Moral Standards?

[Epistemologist]

I was checking on some debate topics, and this one sparked my interest.

Should "the actions of corporations...be held to the same moral standards as the actions of individuals?" Why or why not?

Make sure to vote in the poll. Give your definitions of the salient terms e.g. "corporations" in your response.

There are obviously differences between corporations and individuals. But they are also considered similar in some respects i.e. they are both relatively unified entities with a dominant will and subsequently representative actions.

Anyway, with respect to the many corporate scandals, I think this is a rather notable issue.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think they should be held to the same laws, but I don't see where "morals" come into this.

[gallo]

Quote by: Epistemologist Give your definitions of the salient terms e.g. "corporations" in your response.

But my definition of "corporations" would be irrelevant. The definition of corporation is part of legal code that may actually vary from state to state.

Quote by: Epistemologist There are obviously differences between corporations and individuals.

Really? And I thought that AT&T, Microsoft, Time Warner, General Motors were just some guys with funny names.

Quote by: Epistemologist But they are also considered similar in some respects i.e. they are both relatively unified entities with a dominant will and subsequently representative actions.

So individuals are "relatively unified." I'm glad to learn that.

Incorporation is a way to raise capital while shielding investors from legal responsibility. While the assets of the corporation may be subject to forfeiture, individual investors lose only the funds that have been invested.

Quote by: Epistemologist Anyway, with respect to the many corporate scandals, I think this is a rather notable issue.

Of course, illegal activities of individual officers of a corporation are prosecutable under criminal law.

[Milton Bradley]

They should absolutely be held to the same standards as every other member of the same community.


What possible reason can you comprehend that should grant them special privilege?

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Milton Bradley They should absolutely be held to the same standards as every other member of the same community. What possible reason can you comprehend that should grant them special privilege?

Not necessarily special privilege, but they're not exactly the same as individuals. And when I ask whether or not they should be judged the same, I also ask if the rules should be stricter for corporations. For instance, a moral mistake from a corporation might have a much larger impact on society than one from an individual.

[Kaizen]

There should be no such thing as a "corporation." Merely partnerships and the like built on contract.

The corporation is an entity designed not to promote and reward "risk-taking" but to reward taking bad risks.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kaizen There should be no such thing as a "corporation." Merely partnerships and the like built on contract. The corporation is an entity designed not to promote and reward "risk-taking" but to reward taking bad risks.

So in your opinion, only private entrepreneurships are acceptable?

So to stop investors from taking bad risks by being misled, perhaps there should be more stringent moral regulation of corporations than there are of private entrepeneurships, where owners are often making their own choices with their money. That's one of arguing in favor of unequal moral standards.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kaizen said: There should be no such thing as a "corporation." Merely partnerships and the like built on contract. The corporation is an entity designed not to promote and reward "risk-taking" but to reward taking bad risks.

I could not agree more, except instead of saying "bad" risks, I think it should be risks with only a MARGINAL at best, chance of paying off for investment.

[bishop]

i voted no simply because "moral standards" was undefined and is an entirely subjective phrase...

like osborn, i believe they should be expected to abide by the law. and speaking of the law - it defines what a corporation is.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop like osborn, i believe they should be expected to abide by the law. and speaking of the law - it defines what a corporation is.

Well, that, and the organizations charter.

[carlessbiker]

The potential impacts on a society from a corporation are much higher than with an individual. I think that they should be accountable at a higher level seeing as how most of the damage done to our economy, political system, and environment have been through corporate neglect and negative influence. Obviously corporations have helped create the economy but many (Enron) have also attempted to undermine it as well. No single individual could have done the damage that insider trading, pollutants, and lobbyists have.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think they should be held to the same laws, but I don't see where "morals" come into this.

Exactly. Morality has nothing whatsoever to do with it, only laws do. I had to vote no.

[Epistemologist]

Well, we can say the laws are a representation of the moral standards. And there are other representations e.g. other public expectations.

[Osborn F Enready]

Morals are subjective, laws are objective.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Morals are subjective, laws are objective.

In the broadest sense, they're both subjective. Within the society that has an actual moral system, though, they're both objective i.e. intersubjective. And laws are simply explicit representations of the morals of their culturally defined society.

[Osborn F Enready]

Epitsomologist said: And laws are simply explicit representations of the morals of their culturally defined society.

IDEALLY, perhaps, but surely not in our society in the U.S. today!

I may agree if the PEOPLE actually proposed the laws, but they don't. Special Intrest groups, corporate lobbyists, propose the laws.

So what are we talking about?

The way we look on paper, according to design, or the way things have been subverted to this point currently?

[Osborn F Enready]

One of the big problems is that they treat corporations as "individuals", when they are by no means individuals, as many have noted about effects when corporations cause problems.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready IDEALLY, perhaps, but surely not in our society in the U.S. today! I may agree if the PEOPLE actually proposed the laws, but they don't. Special Intrest groups, corporate lobbyists, propose the laws. So what are we talking about? The way we look on paper, according to design, or the way things have been subverted to this point currently?

Okay, perhaps that's the case with some laws due to those variables. Then if that's the case, wouldn't it more appropriate to say "moral standards" rather than "legal standards," since the latter are often confounded by special lobbyist groups?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready One of the big problems is that they treat corporations as "individuals", when they are by no means individuals, as many have noted about effects when corporations cause problems.

So you support unequal moral standards i.e. they are stricter for corporations?

[Osborn F Enready]

I hesitate to use the word morals, period.

I think every person makes a personalized, steadfast line on morals that cannot be changed by anything except the education, perception and WILLINGNESS of the individual to consider change of belief , which is entirely subjective in the end.

A person who is in one religion, vs a person with another religion with different "morals" at their core, are not interested nor willing usually to reach a compromise, since a compromise is viewed as a loss by both sides.

Common threads, universal "morals" if you will, or inherant natural rights, are all that bind us as people.

[Epistemologist]

Then perhaps we can just say "standards." Ultimately, should individuals and corporations be judged in the same manner?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Common threads, universal "morals" if you will, or inherant natural rights, are all that bind us as people.

None of these are inherent or universal; they are only absolute within given cultures.