"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:18:31 -0700, "David Schwartz"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted :
>> Perhaps you aren't following the thread, but I was talking about the
>>obligations a company has, not the obligations any individual has. And I
>>was
>>talking about obligations *to* individuals.
> To me that makes no sense. Microsoft is an abstraction. It can't do
> anything. It can't make decisions. Only the individuals to work for it
> or on the board can, though they may do it in Microsoft's name. If
> you want to talk about moral action, obligation etc. you can't divorce
> that from the people who do the actions.
If anything that makes the objection even less meaningful. The objection
was:
> Why should loyalty to company trump all other loyalties -- family,
> law, species, community, country, religion ... ?
And the answer is that I'm not talking about "loyalty to company" but
loyalty to shareholders, which are people. Of course, a person is never
required to do anything that actually conflicts with their conscience,
although in some cases this may require you to quit.
DS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
