From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Jul 02 2002 - 00:20:42 MDT
Emlyn writes
> Why, in all the commentary about big business naughtiness, does everyone
> lament that "we can't trust even the biggest and most established
> corporations"? I would have taken it as a given that you couldn't trust
> them.
Yes, it's always been a bit comical: when one rises to the top
of a giant corporation, one assumes a mantle of great moral
leadership. One's ethics must rise above those of normal human
beings.
/end sarcasm
But it *feels* so good to point fingers and decry wrongdoing when
it occurs. Unless one is a mass murderer or a serial killer or
something---in that case, we say, they're "sick", and deserve our
understanding. But not, apparently, when heads of evil corporations
break laws.
Let's realize what's actually going on here: the criticism of the
morals of CEO's isn't really aimed at them, it's aimed at the corrupt
system that spawns them. Only if we elect *good* leaders and
put them in positions of authority, can good triumph over evil.
(Rats, slipped into sarcasm again.)
Yes, it was right to criticize Stalin's moral depravity---making out
new lists each day of those to be executed, and yes, it was right to
realize that the arrival of men at the scene was inevitable given the
nature of the Soviet system. But there was utility in that criticism
only because there was better being practiced throughout the rest of
the world.
And yes, the situation is complicated: J. P. Morgan, for example,
spoke truthfully about his own behavior when he stated that far, far
more important to him was the *character* of someone to whom money
might be lent, than any amount of collateral. Character indeed is
*very* important to business.
But we shouldn't be any more surprised at the existence of some bad
eggs in corporate management than we are that thieves and murderers
exist.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:08 MST