> Ethics are a social contract that Starbucks won't participate in.
Really? This is a really strong assumption. So people as a group cant act in an ethical manner?
> Also, I don't believe I'm generalizing at all.
But you are. Here are your generalizations:
* Ethics are a social contract that Starbucks won't participate in. (What proof do you have?)
* But at some point they [ALL corporations] abandon humanity and are literally incapable of making an ethical choice independent of business value.
> Also, I didn't say it gives anyone a blank check. There are obviously legal consequences, and the law increasingly vastly favors entities like Starbucks, because money buys law in the US
yes might equals right and the ends always justify the means /s
> Really? This is a really strong assumption. So people as a group cant act in an ethical manner?
I'm not sure, but I don't see any evidence that large corporate organizations do. I think at some point distributing responsibility for ethics craves a system for them and the system that ends up depended on is market reaction, and law. Corporations like Starbucks pour enormous amounts of energy manipulating both to serve their interest (profit), so I don't see any evidence of actual ethical behavior except when it lines up conveniently with consumer appreciation. You could argue that's the system working (the ethics of a large enough corporation become a perfect proxy of the ethics of it's consumers) but that argument falls down unless there's complete transparency and an attempt to share truth about company behavior with consumers as opposed using misdirection and marketing, or outright lies to manipulate public opinion.
> * Ethics are a social contract that Starbucks won't participate in. (What proof do you have?)
This isn't a generalization, it's specific to one corporation. I don't have any proof, I have an (admittedly unpopular) model for thinking about companies at this scale that makes it impossible for them to participate in. Per my above corporation, Starbucks' ethics are the ethics of it's consumers (informed beyond Starbucks' interest) and applied through patronage (or lack of it). It's a machine that will behave only if we stop feeding it when it doesn't (which depends on us knowing about it's behavior). I don't think this is as radical an idea as I'm making it sound.
> * But at some point they [ALL corporations] abandon humanity and are literally incapable of making an ethical choice independent of business value.
Fair, yeah. A generalization. One I stand behind unless we turn up any counter examples.
> yes might equals right and the ends always justify the means /s
If you're suggesting that my thoughts lead to this idea then I'm being misunderstood. I certainly don't think either of those things are true. Law != Righteousness (though proponents of existing law love to use this fallacy to demonize critics and offenders), and the idea that money buys law can't possibly be controversial. Hopefully I didn't imply that I think our legal system ought to work that way, I don't.
> I'm not sure, but I don't see any evidence that large corporate organizations do.
> This isn't a generalization, it's specific to one corporation. I don't have any proof
In Starbuck's case, they popularized fair trade coffee and they offered their part time employees health insurance way before any federal mandate. There are plenty of other examples as well for other companies.
> If you're suggesting that my thoughts lead to this idea then I'm being misunderstood.
Ok you're advocating being an asshole towards what you feel are a powerful group of people. In my opinion it's not that far off from saying, "Hey this group of people are wealthy and stingy. Let's take their stuff, and make it legal to put them in gas chambers because they're ruining our country."
Drawing a line between believing that it's not unethical to violate Starbucks' trademark and Hitler is jaw dropping, and really pretty hurtful. I don't think we share enough common ground to continue this discussion. I apologize if I've offended.
Really? This is a really strong assumption. So people as a group cant act in an ethical manner?
> Also, I don't believe I'm generalizing at all.
But you are. Here are your generalizations:
* Ethics are a social contract that Starbucks won't participate in. (What proof do you have?)
* But at some point they [ALL corporations] abandon humanity and are literally incapable of making an ethical choice independent of business value.
> Also, I didn't say it gives anyone a blank check. There are obviously legal consequences, and the law increasingly vastly favors entities like Starbucks, because money buys law in the US
yes might equals right and the ends always justify the means /s