Every nation is built on a hill of skulls. "Has done in the past" is not the same as "is currently doing".
It's a weak justification.
Maybe you can explain this logical extension, because I don't see it. At a minimum, it's not self-evident.
No, I simply asked for someone to explain on their reasoning.
> Logically, that would lead us to excuse current bad behavior by smaller companies because everyone does it, and they'll do good once they are big enough.
I don't think that's necessarily logical at all. It assumes a lot of things which we don't know. For example, what rate of companies that exhibit bad behavior survive to become companies that later exhibit good behavior? Does whether the bad behavior was endemic to the company or restricted to specific divisions matter? How much does a change in management affect outcome?
In my experience, plenty of people do things when they are young that they are ashamed of later in life, and would not repeat. Why should I believe the same can't be said of a company, which is made up of people?
> "Has done in the past" is not the same as "is currently doing".
Because the "is currently doing" is predicated on a path to success that rested on "has done in the past", I interpreted that as promoting an "ends justifies the means" strategy of growing a company. That is: If you have to do bad things to get to be big enough to do good things, well so be it.
Similarly, you later wrote:
> In my experience, plenty of people do things when they are young that they are ashamed of later in life, and would not repeat. Why should I believe the same can't be said of a company, which is made up of people?
I don't disagree with your statements as observations. I disagree with the lackadaisical presentation of this sort of corporate behavior as something which, by-and-by, people should let slide, so why worry about it?
Furthermore, a young person is comprised (by definition) of a single young person. A young company can sometimes be made up of young people. However, a young company can also be made up of seasoned, cynical people who take seriously the attitude of doing bad when it helps you succeed, and well, maybe some good when you can afford to later on.
Upon closer reading of the original statement, I agree. I think the core point I wasn't accounting for is "every nation". If every example includes an attribute, then it's not logical to assume the next item won't.
> I disagree with the lackadaisical presentation of this sort of corporate behavior as something which, by-and-by, people should let slide, so why worry about it?
Are they letting it slide? The Google pharmaceuticals ads scandal was resolved with Google forfeiting the gross revenue of the program to the tune of 500 million. That can be interpreted multiple ways, depending on whether you believe that was an adequate punishment, or whether you think that could have been a learning experience. Is having the government punish Google, given their mandate by the people to police this, sufficient to consider it accounted for? Does the bank robber who gets out of jail after 10-15 years still deserved to be ostracized by the community, or has the punishment already been paid?
> Furthermore, a young person is comprised (by definition) of a single young person. A young company can sometimes be made up of young people. However, a young company can also be made up of seasoned, cynical people who take seriously the attitude of doing bad when it helps you succeed, and well, maybe some good when you can afford to later on.
I wasn't trying to focus on young vs old in company or employee age, but that time can cause change in a person as well as a company (it's entirely possible 10 years on that a company may not share a single employee or board member with the prior incarnation). This is the Theseus' Paradox[1] applied to corporate entities, past behavior, and current standing.
Did you quote that from somewhere? Because that is an amazing turn of phrase.
I assure you, this is not how we all feel. I look at an animal and I see food. Trips to the zoo make me hungry. The only ones I don't want on the menu are the biohazards, the toxic ones, and the bad-tasting ones. My only reservation about killing them is the same as with changing the oil on my car: it's messy, dirty work.
I think it has to do with making a sharp distinction between human and non-human. I feel that there is a strange commonality between animal rights activists and the people who enjoy torturing animals, with both sides seeing the animals as being relatively human, to love or to torture. The animals are being personified, then treated to good or evil. We don't have to personify animals. We can view them more like vegetables. Pretty much nobody sheds a tear when chopping vegetables, onions excepted. Pretty much nobody can sadistically enjoy it either. It's just food.