Comment by olefoo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by olefoo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"""A CEO isn't being paid to make his company an ethical actor in the world, he's paid to maximize the value of the company. If a CEO's ethics regarding DRM don't agree with maximizing the value of the company, he'll say "I can't do my job because it's unethical" and be replaced with someone else."""

That is wrong, and wrong in a way that is very symptomatic of the illness afflicting our society as a whole. A CEO or other officer of a company has a fiduciary responsibility to her shareholders, but she also has an ethical responsibility to the society in which her company exists; and without which it would not exist.

That the myth that fiduciary responsibilities trump all other responsibilities is so widespread that many here hold it up as an unquestioned truth should be disturbing to you. If you believe that your companies profitability outweighs any moral, ethical or legal obligation; then you are criminally insane and it is societies right and duty to limit you so that you do not harm others.

"Wrong" meaning you wish it wasn't that way, or wrong meaning inaccurate in describing the state of the world? The former I agree with, the latter you don't seem to give much evidence for.

If you wish it wasn't that way, how do you suppose we should define corporations? You can't just stick a "must has an ethical responsibility to the society in which her company exists; and without which it would not exist" clause in a law somewhere...

myth that fiduciary responsibilities trump all other responsibilities

Again, this is like talking about the myth of gravity after a rock falls on your head. Fiduciary responsibility is the law under which corporations like publishers operate.

If you don't like the law, it would be a nice exercise to suggest an alternative (which we can debate).

If you believe that your companies profitability outweighs any moral, ethical or legal obligation; then you are criminally insane and it is societies right and duty to limit you so that you do not harm others

Let's simplify: a rock fell on a baby's head and smushed it. I point and say "hey look, a rock fell on a baby's head and smushed it, because it's really heavy". You say: "If you believe that babies should be smushed by rocks; then you are criminally insane and it is societies right and duty to limit you so that you do not harm others". See my point?

See, and this confuses me - in your last sentence, you used "fiduciary responsibilities", which makes me think you went to college. But this shows such a lack of reading comprehension... oooooh... are you one of those "globalization" majors?

    <offtopic>Geezus fuck, has news.YC really come to this!?</offtopic>

Your logic does not take into account the entire ecosystem in which these companies exist. If you take it as law that companies exist only to make profit and they cannot help it, then you should also take it as law that when companies do things people don't like, people will get upset, and this will, hopefully, reduce the company's profits. This is how people can try to make companies do what they want, and this is how markets work. So, using your logic, there is nothing wrong with people getting angry and blaming the company - it is part of the system to make the market produce what people want.

But we were talking about morality, and I'm afraid markets aren't moral when it comes to externalities. Most people don't care if slaves picked their strawberries or if children made their shoes.

Business transactions are business transactions - I give you $$$, you give me laptop. Whether or not you dumped toxic waste on villagers halfway around the world to make it just isn't part of the equation for most people.

[AGAIN: Not saying this is right, or optimal, it's just reality folks, with no way I can see of changing it]

Are you unfamiliar with the usage of wrong, as in bad; morally wrong, unhealthy and pernicious?

As a matter of fact I did go to college. That does not mean that I had my conscience removed. It also means that I can debate someone without resort to vituperation.

You said: """Again, this is like talking about the myth of gravity after a rock falls on your head. Fiduciary responsibility is the law under which corporations like publishers operate."""

Fiduciary responsibility is considered to be breached when the officers of the corporation place the assets of the corporation at risk by violating the law; is that not so?

Allow me to state a hypothetical, you are the CEO or a board member of a company and one of your direct reports brings you a plan that would involve selling lollypops with a physiologically addictive additive to young children. He presents complete documentation that no one will be harmed unless they stop consuming the product and provides an assurance that an industry consortium can have this additive declared legal before the product is marketed. He also presents projections that make it obvious that this would be the most profitable undertaking the company could do at this time.

So this plan would be legal and profitable.

Would it be morally correct? Obviously not.

Would you do this?

It is in the narrow sense you have described what you must do to fulfill your fiduciary obligations. It is also blatantly unethical.

I look forward to hearing your answer.

Fiduciary responsibility is considered to be breached when the officers of the corporation place the assets of the corporation at risk by violating the law; is that not so?

The problem with the term "fiduciary responsibility" is that it is a vague term that is ever changing. You don't have to violate the law to breach a fiduciary responsibility. With that said, the extent to which you are responsible for some financial matter is usually determined by the lawyer suing you and the judge overseeing your case.

I am fully cognizant that fiduciary responsibility is a guiding principle and not rote procedure, the point I am attempting to elucidate for those who throw the term around so freely here. Is that fiduciary responsibility is not a substitute for moral judgment, and too narrow a construal of it leads inevitably to a place where a strict by the numbers construction of what fiduciary responsibility is demands that you take actions that are so wrong that your company should be dissolved since it is actively harmful to society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com