Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9469426" data-attributes="member: 7023840">My favorite professor in law school taught several courses in corporate law and business organizations. He also was the one to introduce me to Law & Economics. When teaching corporate law, he made a point to teach the legal principles, and then to repeatedly challenge the class using various ethical issues and how they would apply those legal principles to the ethical issues.For example-Imagine a corporation does delivery in a city. They know that they can make more money, faster, if the drivers double park. However, there is a civil fine for double parking. After crunching the numbers, the corporation finds that they still make a lot more profit by double parking (when parking isn't available). Does the corporation instruct the drivers to double park?...and from there, you can immediately see the variations on the issue. Does the corporation violate a civil prohibition against dumping refuse in a river if it is cost effective to do so? Does the corporation allow a product to be sold that might injure people, if the amount of damages in tort would be far less than the profits (call this the unexamined Pinto principle). While you might think this is a slam dunk based on the Pinto, this is actually a decision that corporations make all the time, since most products carry some danger.And so on. I think that the problem is particularly acute when you have an inherently dangerous product ... especially because it is addictive. Corporations exist to maximize return to shareholders, so by definition, they should be trying to get as many people using their product as early as possible. Right? But ... also seriously wrong.We can see this with tobacco because it's in the past. But now apply this to, oh, have you watched sports in the US recently? What do you think the companies that make money from gamblers are doing?Corporations gonna corporate.</blockquote>

Verification