Mine is to be an opinion-only post but...
> You're evil or you're not. Full stop.
... I'm afraid I can't agree.
> You're evil or you're not. Full stop.
... I'm afraid I can't agree.
Any for profit company that is sufficiently large enough will eventually behave in ways that are evil.
The problem here is corporate bylaws and shareholders. Many Corporate bylaws state the only purpose of the company is to pursue profits, everything else is secondary.
These things create a perverse incentive to continuously show growth.
It's not enough to be profitable as a company. The company is expected to continuously expand their market share.
If they own a relatively small market share they can innovate, improve their product, get better at marketing or sales and expand their share that way.
But eventually if they are already the dominant player in a market, to continue to grow they must snuff out competition with anti-competitive behavior and expand into to new markets often by buying companies already in those markets. And If a C level executive or board member refuses to put profits over people, they can be ousted by shareholders or sued for securities fraud.
This behavior pattern of infinite expansion of market share is the symptom created by the perverse incentives of shareholders and will eventually drive any for profit company that is large enough and has shareholders to behave in ways that we consider evil.
And while I am sure the solution is likely reclassification into B Corporations or non-profits, getting companies to reclassify is not going to be easy.
As for myself, I work for non-profits largely because I want to do good for others. I cannot see taking advantage of another's data, for instance, without their consent (real or imagined) to make a profit and then share it with them. Perhaps I'm a goody-two-shoes, but I'll accept it. I cannot fathom working a job where my existence is to bleed out as much profit from others without them knowing, or if they do know, them not having a voice or a way out short of not using the devices of modernity.
I could do this all day. A clear and unambigious view of what's wrong and right is a risky thing - you will be compelled to fix it, without limits to your interference.
That was provocative and I think you're a good person but I don't think it's so easy, or safe, to draw a dividing line. But that risks not drawing a dividing line, so more dangers lurk.
As far as meat goes, I don't eat red meat. Fish, yes. Chicken, don't really care for it. I could easily get by on fish, rice, beans, salads, etc. I see your point. My eating fish would be evil to someone else since a life is lost in doing so. Beef is nasty to me because I hate even seeing fat on food. As an aside, to me, nothing is better than fried fish or a salad made from chilled chickpeas, lime juice, cilantro, diced Roma tomatoes, and red onion. Add Serrano or Jalapeno peppers if you like spicy.
Do your taxes contribute to murdering foreigners in a desert far away?
Are you evil?
This isn't a personal attack, I just really struggle when I see moral absolutism and binary thinking. The world isn't binary even though our work with computers and human systems often lead us to pretend that it is.
Now why would you think that?
In fact I'm pretty sure you're wrong: good and evil are various shades of gray, never white nor black. In real life, there aren't entities (corporations or humans or whatever) that are "pure good", nor are there entities that are "pure evil".