> A corporation is not required to kill for profit.
Some corporations aren't in a situation where killing people is profitable.
But every corporation will come across situations where harming people is profitable, and if they don't harm people in that situation, one of their competitors will.
People like Yvonne Chounard who manage to avoid unethical practices AND create a profitable company are the exception, not the rule, and he was aware of that, which is why he went to great lengths creating an atypical corporate management structure to try to preserve the ethics of Patagonia in his absence.
> Doctors would kill for profit. Politicians would. The same for engineers, cookers. Any profession, activity or line of business really.
> That's human nature. But not all humans. Not even majority, I'd say certainly.
You're fundamentally not understanding what I'm saying.
It's not the doctors I'm worried about. Doctors have to look their patients in the eye usually.
It's not the cooks I'm worried about, because they're generally poor, and don't have the means to avoid regulation.
It's not the engineers I'm worried about, because they generally don't get paid more if their work kills people (with the exception of those in the manufacturing of weapons). In fact, it's often engineers that are the whistleblowers saying "we told them what was wrong and they did it anyway" when the decision is made to do something dangerous.
And if you think the majority of politicians won't kill to keep power, please tell me what country you are in so I can move there. I can only think of a handful of elected politicians at the federal US level who aren't obvious de-facto murderers.
The people I'm worried about the most are the C-level execs, board members, and majority shareholders: the kind of people who can put a numerical value on what it will cost to not kill people, and then justify it to themselves and never have to look their victims or their victims' families in the eye.