On the topic of corporate personhood, I believe that Kent Greenfield defined this topic very well. He stated in his article that “understand that “corporate personhood” simply expresses the idea that the corporation has a legal identity separate from its shareholders.” However, I believe that corporate personhood is a step beyond this idea; it is, instead, granting businesses the ability to have similar rights to a person, including the ability to spend campaign money or practice a particular set of religious beliefs.
At least, that’s what I believe it to be, based off the readings. This whole concept is extremely confusing, especially for someone who is trying to comprehend this while motion sick in an airplane. Therefore, I would like to blame any misconceptions of this topic on the fact that this blog is being completed in an airplane. (Thanks a lot for scheduling a blog over break. I really appreciate it.)
(That was sarcasm, if you couldn’t tell.)
The ramifications of the concept manifest themselves, in one way, in the debate as to where the line should be drawn regarding freedom of speech; because corporations singularly do not have a conscience, how can they decide on a whole which religion they decide to support? The views of the corporation may not always represent the views of everyone involved within the corporation; therefore, adapting a religion for an entire company can cause issues and divides between workers and administrators.
On the other hand, treating the corporate person as a separate entity allows people who caused an accident to avoid the blame and incrimination; the corporation will instead be blamed. But again, this easily becomes a double-edged sword. By claiming that the corporation is separate and by placing the blame all on one invisible person, corporations as a whole can more easily execute immoral acts. However, if one person causes an issue, then everyone in the company is punished in a way because there is not an actual person who can shoulder the blame.
After examining the Microsoft antitrust case, I don’t think that their practices could be considered unethical or immoral. All that they did was install one of their products onto another one of their products; it’s their right, as owners of the OS, to install whatever software they produce onto a device of their own. If Netscape had developed their own OS, then it would have totally been fine to pre-install Netscape on their own devices; making your own browser doesn’t immediately make a corporation a monopoly.
From my perspective, this whole situation is like calling McDonald’s or Burger King a monopoly for selling their own sides. Both companies really specialize in burger-making (Operating Systems) but pair their products with French Fries or milkshakes (browsers) produced only by them. If this was the case, then salesmen of those products should be outraged and claim that those places are monopolies; while I am not sure how many OS systems are out there, it would be ridiculous to limit a company to making a single product because they would be a monopoly otherwise.
If Microsoft did make it harder to install different browsers by putting up deliberate roadblocks in their software to slow their machines down, then I would consider the corporation a monopoly. Also, if Microsoft had been forcing others to use a different version of Java, this behavior may have made them out to a monopoly as well, but if they had simply developed their own version of Java for their own use, I don’t think that this development would warrant the label of monopoly. All of these ifs, however, are just ifs; if (again) they did not actually practice these deterrent action, hen how can you call Microsoft a monopoly? Microsoft simply released their own version of a browser with another of their products, and in my opinion, there’s nothing monopolizing about that.
When discussing the line between a normal corporation and a monopoly, I think the main restriction should be placed based on the whether a corporation is actively working to hurt or prevent other companies from succeeding (the key word here being actively). As I stated previously, if corporations deliberately create scripts to slow down download times, prevent a user from purchasing and using another company’s software, or directly prevent a company from flourishing in any way, then that would be considered as ruthless behavior. However, competition does not equal monopoly. If two companies are making similar products and one is successful while the other is not, the struggling company cannot automatically claim its rival is a monopoly; clearly, if there is competition and a market for both companies, then one cannot be a monopoly. While the business world can be ruthless, it is not necessarily oppressive. It’s survival of the fittest, but tampering with success actively is not fair.
While I’m not totally sure of my stance on corporate personhood, I think, based on my opinion on ruthless practices, that corporations do have a moral obligation in general to treat other workers and companies with respect. They also have to respect the practices of other corporations and treat other corporations in the way that they would want to be treated. I unfortunately don’t have much to say about this topic because I think that the whole situation is fairly straight forward. If you treat a company like a person, then they are automatically given the responsibilities that an individual would have, for the most part.
And this opinion would be true in regards to Microsoft, if you safely assume that they did not actively slow down the installation of Netscape. Microsoft treated their rivals with respect while still working to better improve their business. Even after being convicted of being a monopoly, Microsoft accepted defeat and completed their given responsibilities, even issuing a version of Windows without Windows Explorer to Europe. I believe that these actions are sound evidence that Microsoft is a morally sound corporation, even if people did not accept their apology and subsequent actions.
On a larger scale, I think that this quote by Cato Shapiro says it all concerning corporations’ moral integrity. "Nobody is saying that corporations are living, breathing entities, or that they have souls or anything like that," he says. "This is about protecting the rights of the individuals that associate in this way." For a corporation to behave morally and ethically, they should protect the rights of the individuals within their company and treat rival corporations with the same respect that is needed for their employees. Through this system of respect and care, corporations can behave morally and ethically.
(Sorry for the length…there were a lot of questions, and I had a lot to say for some of them. But I’m not going to try to cut it at this point.)
No comments:
Post a Comment