I think amoral entities cannot be evil by definition. Rocks and volcanoes kill people, but they're not amoral.
In any case, humans are intrinsically moral — we're either moral or immoral or some mixture. A group of humans working together do not suddenly become amoral. Claims that the law obliges a group of people to act in an evil way if they wish to do this that and the other are false, but even if they were true, it does not absolve the people who choose to act in an evil way; you can obey the law and therefore act in an evil way.
Risk analysis. An amoral entity will do evil if and when the benefit of evil outweighs the consequences, or the benefit of doing good. In terms of moral alignment, corporations as entities often behave like sociopaths.
One infamous example is Ford deciding not to fix the exploding gas tanks in Pintos because they estimated the cost of paying out lawsuits and settlements would be less than the cost of recalling and repairing their automobiles. Choosing when to do evil and how much evil to do is SOP for any corporation big enough to afford the risk.
I don't disagree. Google is synonymous with privacy invasion. The fastest way to convince me not to use a product is to put the word Google on it.
What I do disagree with is the Australian approach.
For instance, privacy is ignored. If I understand correctly, privacy issues are not addresses in any way, shape or form and would remain as-is under their proposal.
So what we're left with looks more like a good old-fashioned, heavy handed, targeted, mafia style shakedown of a foreign company that would hand Rupert Murdock a slice of Google profits without him having to compete for it.
This is not free trade or free enterprise and just begs for similar protectionist retaliation against Australian interests. Fair enough if they never plan to conduct commerce with foreign entities. Otherwise, they are just shooting themselves in the foot in the long run.
> This is not free trade or free enterprise and just begs for similar protectionist retaliation against Australian interests.
I guess the issue here is that it's the Australian government standing up for one American multinational against another American multinational. It's not really protectionism; it's more standard old fashioned corruption. I'm not sure if protectionist retaliation is the standard response to corruption. It's possible it becomes an option available in this case.
13 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 40.2 ms ] threadAre they evil? Or just amoral?
In any case, humans are intrinsically moral — we're either moral or immoral or some mixture. A group of humans working together do not suddenly become amoral. Claims that the law obliges a group of people to act in an evil way if they wish to do this that and the other are false, but even if they were true, it does not absolve the people who choose to act in an evil way; you can obey the law and therefore act in an evil way.
Google is a moral company, which does evil.
I guess I'm just a little simplistic and old fashioned. Where I come from, doing evil makes you evil.
One infamous example is Ford deciding not to fix the exploding gas tanks in Pintos because they estimated the cost of paying out lawsuits and settlements would be less than the cost of recalling and repairing their automobiles. Choosing when to do evil and how much evil to do is SOP for any corporation big enough to afford the risk.
In other words, lack of motivation.
What I do disagree with is the Australian approach.
For instance, privacy is ignored. If I understand correctly, privacy issues are not addresses in any way, shape or form and would remain as-is under their proposal.
So what we're left with looks more like a good old-fashioned, heavy handed, targeted, mafia style shakedown of a foreign company that would hand Rupert Murdock a slice of Google profits without him having to compete for it.
This is not free trade or free enterprise and just begs for similar protectionist retaliation against Australian interests. Fair enough if they never plan to conduct commerce with foreign entities. Otherwise, they are just shooting themselves in the foot in the long run.
I guess the issue here is that it's the Australian government standing up for one American multinational against another American multinational. It's not really protectionism; it's more standard old fashioned corruption. I'm not sure if protectionist retaliation is the standard response to corruption. It's possible it becomes an option available in this case.
How thoughtful of them to take an interest /s.
Murdock and company totally dominate Australian media. His roots and influence there are much deeper and more pervasive than in America.