- Position1 of 2›
- No, corporations shouldn't have moral responsibility
Corporations are prisoners of economics, leaving them unable to have an attitude towards social good or a conscience.
The argument
A corporation's role is not to set public morality and values. That is the job of the public, and to an extent, the government. It would abhorrent for Coca Cola, for example, to decide on a set of values then attempt to impose them on the world. Therefore, morals are beyond the scope of what corporations are supposed to do. Under capitalism, we expect corporations to protect the financial interests of investors and employees.
Context
Persons responsibilities are to think about the social and physical wellbeing of others. Corporations' responsibilities are purely financial.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Thinking about corporate responsibility in this way would have prevented the development of the academic field of business ethics. A corporation can, and should, have morals. Without them, we cannot hold companies to account for negligent and deliberately harmful behaviour, nor can we expect them to abide by any laws that govern their behaviour outside of financial legislation. We also lose any ability to hold the individual decision-maker responsible when they are acting on behalf of a corporation in the pursuit of profits.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] A company has the responsibility to consider their impact beyond finances and profits.
Framing
A corporation's role, under capitalism, is to protect its employees' and shareholders' financial interests. Any deviation from this clearly-defined role would surmount to private overreach.