|
This instance does not include the numerous grey topics where remarks have a location
25.Jul.20, 09:08;
84;
0;
+0 |
0 |
-0
This is where I see this debate. Corporations are not people, they do not have any moral instincts that are built-in. If they act morally, it is because they gain, there is not any other motive. Either because there's pressure internally from their workers to behave in ways consistent with the morals and beliefs of their employees, or pressure from governments or consumers. "Everyone should just do the ideal thing" is a naive expectation. And I feel this is true even for individuals too: if you want a person to act in a moral way the ideal way to do that's to give them the ideal incentives and benefits to make acting morally the best and most attractive solution for them. Your society will probably be unstable, if you do not then.
Why don't you support them? Words are actions, oftentimes. Placing an overview of belief such as this out is not easy. I would hope they're also doing material items to create the lives of their black workers better but that does not mean I need to take care of this as moot. Putting a public announcement is actually a fantastic step forwards for initiatives like that, because if EA is not doing enough then it's really simple for people tirelessly to say"Look, our activities are materially distinct from our stated values and we should do something about this"
At the end of the day if you refuse to admit when a business creates a small step you appreciate then how do they ever learn how to generate a large step you love? Where earning this small concession implies you won't have the negotiating power to make a larger one later on you are treating this like a political negotiation. However, I really don't think that is how this works: EA is testing the waters and learning from their customers whether this is the type of thing they support or not. Is your lesson you would like them to learn from all this that human decency is not worth appealing to because it does not actually affect purchasing decisions?
I believe according to your comment that we are going to essentially disagree on idealism vs. realism, and that is okay. I find myself usually at the center of realism and idealism since I understand how the world works but I still want a better universe; you don't have to pick one or another. I really don't understand why we need to give corporations a pass simply as they aren't individuals (which Citizens United would disagree with but that is another argument.) We should not just accept the best we are given by a company, we ought to anticipate the best we need from them. Companies are made of people calling the shots and you will find an infinite amount of examples of organizations that both make massive profits and stand up for good causes. Patagonia is an example. They don't have to make sustainable goods and offer repair and reuse applications to go against quickly fashion, but they do and they make a lot of money anyways.
"Everybody should do the right thing" is simply naive if you do nothing about it. This instance does not include the numerous grey topics where remarks have a location; this is actually a discussion of if you want black people to have rights or not. It isn't courageous of a company to say that black people deserve rights simply because they'll lose white supremacist clients. It really is quite simple for a company to set out a statement of opinion like this, as we've seen from all the businesses doing this at this time like Amazon and the NFL. I really do not know how it's hard for a multi-million dollar business to give up a tiny fraction of their profits for the greater good. If people who do not like Black Lives Issue make up a majority of a Organization's customerbase, then perhaps they shouldn't have those profits (not claiming EA's playerbase from BLM, this is a hyperbolized example)
If you want to know more, please click www.mmoexp.com
|
Classifieds
Gallery
