Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

iambingalls t1_j3n40lo wrote

Reply to comment by VersaceEauFraiche in Violence and force: “Camus and Sartre are paradoxically inseparable because they are opposites in this most central and binding debate on racism and all kinds of social oppression.” by IAI_Admin

All of those possibilities listed would be subordinate to the prime directive of profit. Corporations are not moral entities, they are designed to make a profit for the shareholders and everything else is beholden to that aim.

3

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j3n67xq wrote

I was talking about the people within these organizations that make decisions about marketing and PR on behalf of the whole organization. You're right that corporations are not moral entities, but people are, and corporations are full of people and the entities that make decisions within corporations on the behalf of corporations are people. None of these business decisions (PR, advertisement, hiring decisions) are metaphysically neutral.

If all the efforts of a corporation is done in pursuit of profit, and the majority of Fortune 500 companies put out this kind of advertisement (BLM, anti-racist, female empowerment, etc), then it follows that such endeavors are profitable, that a sufficient number of people support such things, and my assertion in my original post that our society isn't a New Jim Crow follows.

5

nhowlett t1_j3nklu4 wrote

As a shareholder with reporting requirements for multiple corporations, I resent the insinuation that nothing moral prevails in the decision making process of such an entity. Corporations are like countries - a bit of legal fiction with, perhaps, sane, honourable governance, or else maybe with a madman at the helm. I wouldn't toss that at the feet of the idea of the Nation State, I'd be inclined to indict the leader in question.

3