Hacker News Reader

Comment by tathougies | Hacker News Reader

No, asking companies to consider moral obligations under penalty of law is what I think is wrong. The law exists to codify morality. If this is a moral concern, it should be against the law. We cannot expect disparate entities around the world, staffed by people with disparate values, to all magically think like an Anglophone Hacker News-type. In order to make expectations clear, morality that requires this level of behavioral modification ought to be law. In this regard, it has been turned into law, and whatever authorities we have have decided that this behavior is not illegal. Thus we conclude that the international maritime commission, which purportedly represents the will of the democratic countries of which it consists, does not believe this is immoral.

View on HN

I'm reading your comment as "Companies ought to have no morals, except in cases where required by law, because there are no common morals" I'm going to take a couple assumption about your political stance and try to explain why I think this is false and also terrible policy.

1. You are libertarian, or lean extremely conservative. This is from your dislike of new laws in general => prior comment "Sure, all law is an exercise of authority, and hence authoritarianism. The commenter was merely calling out that... no matter how you dice it... a new law is always authoritarian, whether you acknowledge it or not."

2. You believe everything not strictly disallowed by the law should be allowed, and that unless the law says otherwise, it should be allowed. Libertus.

Generally, laws exist to protect public and individual good. This is true for both the Western and Eastern hemispheres. For example, punishment for murder, penalties for illegal dumping of chemicals. Individual rights and societal living standards are protected by ensuring one does not infringe upon the rights of others. However, it does not say what is "Good" or "Bad". This is why in addition to learning about basic societal law, parents teach their kids morals and norms. Cheating is bad, it is rude to interrupt others when talking, hospitality, gratitude. However none of these are codified into law. This is also historically found in all civilizations [-1]. When people break these norms, they are penalized by society.However companies, which simply are groups of people, will discard these norms to pursue profit because there is no significant penalty for ignoring norms and morals, nor laws which are frequently lobbied against or weaseled out of [0].

We can and should require companies to consider moral obligations because there is no way to codify directives such as "don't ruin the planet." Laws are generally written from the actions from the past. Monsanto knew for decades the effects of DDT, but they didn't do anything because there was no law requiring them to act. But should Monsanto have took initiative to act? Eventually, laws are enacted to combat abuse, but in many cases, the damage is already done. [1-3]

[-1] https://evolution-institute.org/the-seven-moral-rules-found-... [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-envir... [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190426110601.h... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-cont... [3] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/federal-study-...

> Companies ought to have no morals, except in cases where required by law, because there are no common morals

Actually, I'm Catholic, so I actually do believe there are absolute morals and that everyone, including corporations, ought to follow them. And moreover, even more strongly than most authoritarians, I believe that if you eschew these morals, you may end up experiencing eternal damnation (unless you get baptized and go to confession regularly, ya da ya da ya -- you know the drill). So your reading of me as a libertarian is really quite far from reality.

However, when it comes to asking whether a government should punish a company (and thus a person, because companies are fictitious), then yes, you must be able to codify your morality so that no one can claim they are being unfairly treated by an arbitrary imposition of your morality on them. A fundamental part of Catholic social teaching -- the same one that says you have to love your neighbor and take care of planet earth by not dumping chemicals -- is that governments have an obligation to promulgate and enforce just laws. Without proper promulgation (i.e., announcing the new law to the world and making reasonably sure all interested parties know its contents), a ruling cannot be held to have the power of law. It would be immoral in this case for a government to attempt enforcement, even if the purportedly immoral party has committed a clear wrong doing.

I see this in the same way I see the trolley problem. Although certainly the outcome of a trolley hurtling towards 100 people would be very bad and unfortunate, under no circumstances can a moral actor willingly choose to sacrifice fewer people to divert the trolley's course. If a government cannot morally enforce its law, it ought to do nothing (other than make a new law). As I said above (and which should have been the first hint that I am not really a bona fide libertarian), in this case, the maritime commission has a clear way out by simply remaking the law to cover this case of chemical dumping. If they believe this dumping is bad for the planet, then they have every right (and an obligation perhaps) to do this. That is not a libertarian statement.

As for the companies... they should not dump if they know it to be toxic (I am personally not 100% clear if it is or not -- the maritime commission seems to not know either), but they certainly cannot be punished for doing it even if it is, until such time as a proper authority has actually made it against the law. Up until that point, that is between them and God, and if they knowingly commit a sin and don't repent, they'll probably end up in a real bad place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com