I'm not arguing that ethics are bullshit. I'm arguing that they don't apply to your relationship with Starbucks because Starbucks is of a size and makeup that it's achieved a humanity index which approaches (if not reaches) zero. It's akin to applying an ethical framework to your relationship with a robot.
I agree that "because I can" is causing enormous problems. The most damaging perpetrators of this are these corporate super-organisms (Starbucks being just one example) and sociopathic assholes (this includes patent trolls).
In dealing with either of those entities (but not each-other!) we do the world a disservice holding ourselves to a one-sided ethical yardstick. Fuck ethics when dealing with them. Play by their rules.
Just because Starbucks is a large, profitable organization, it doesn't mean that it gives people a blank check for doing anything they want against Starbucks regardless of whether or not it's wrong.
> The most damaging perpetrators of this are these corporate super-organisms
That doesn't mean all corporations including Starbucks are the same. Over generalizing something doesn't help. Are you going to tell me that everyone belonging to a particular ethnic group is prone to stealing so we should just lock them all up at night?
> In dealing with either of those entities (but not each-other!) we do the world a disservice holding ourselves to a one-sided ethical yardstick.
When you start down this road, it'll be easier and easier to start breaking your own rules on when it's right time to do the right thing (or prevent yourself from being asshole at times).
Your argument is circular because it assumes it's possible to do something "wrong" to Starbucks. I'm arguing that it's not possible because ethics don't actually exist in the relationship in the first place. Ethics are a social contract that Starbucks won't participate in. Any participation on your part is optional, and I believe silly.
> That doesn't mean all corporations including Starbucks are the same.
No, of course they're not all the same. But at some point they abandon humanity and are literally incapable of making an ethical choice independent of business value. Certainly the brewer or other small businesses are well below this index. There are people at those entities that are capable of making a ethical decision without regard to how it will affect the organization. Where organizations cross that line is fuzzy, but Starbucks is certainly past it.
Also, I don't believe I'm generalizing at all. I certainly think the evaluation is case-by-case, but I'd certainly be quick to assume that any publicly traded company worth billions falls into this category.
[Edit: Also, I didn't say it gives anyone a blank check. There are obviously legal consequences, and the law increasingly vastly favors entities like Starbucks, because money buys law in the US. In short: If you're the brewer in this story the scales are already tipped against you. Opting-in to the idea that you ought to treat Starbucks the way you ought to treat your next door neighbor doesn't help anyone but Starbucks.]
> Ethics are a social contract that Starbucks won't participate in.
Really? This is a really strong assumption. So people as a group cant act in an ethical manner?
> Also, I don't believe I'm generalizing at all.
But you are. Here are your generalizations:
* Ethics are a social contract that Starbucks won't participate in. (What proof do you have?)
* But at some point they [ALL corporations] abandon humanity and are literally incapable of making an ethical choice independent of business value.
> Also, I didn't say it gives anyone a blank check. There are obviously legal consequences, and the law increasingly vastly favors entities like Starbucks, because money buys law in the US
yes might equals right and the ends always justify the means /s
> Really? This is a really strong assumption. So people as a group cant act in an ethical manner?
I'm not sure, but I don't see any evidence that large corporate organizations do. I think at some point distributing responsibility for ethics craves a system for them and the system that ends up depended on is market reaction, and law. Corporations like Starbucks pour enormous amounts of energy manipulating both to serve their interest (profit), so I don't see any evidence of actual ethical behavior except when it lines up conveniently with consumer appreciation. You could argue that's the system working (the ethics of a large enough corporation become a perfect proxy of the ethics of it's consumers) but that argument falls down unless there's complete transparency and an attempt to share truth about company behavior with consumers as opposed using misdirection and marketing, or outright lies to manipulate public opinion.
> * Ethics are a social contract that Starbucks won't participate in. (What proof do you have?)
This isn't a generalization, it's specific to one corporation. I don't have any proof, I have an (admittedly unpopular) model for thinking about companies at this scale that makes it impossible for them to participate in. Per my above corporation, Starbucks' ethics are the ethics of it's consumers (informed beyond Starbucks' interest) and applied through patronage (or lack of it). It's a machine that will behave only if we stop feeding it when it doesn't (which depends on us knowing about it's behavior). I don't think this is as radical an idea as I'm making it sound.
> * But at some point they [ALL corporations] abandon humanity and are literally incapable of making an ethical choice independent of business value.
Fair, yeah. A generalization. One I stand behind unless we turn up any counter examples.
> yes might equals right and the ends always justify the means /s
If you're suggesting that my thoughts lead to this idea then I'm being misunderstood. I certainly don't think either of those things are true. Law != Righteousness (though proponents of existing law love to use this fallacy to demonize critics and offenders), and the idea that money buys law can't possibly be controversial. Hopefully I didn't imply that I think our legal system ought to work that way, I don't.
> I'm not sure, but I don't see any evidence that large corporate organizations do.
> This isn't a generalization, it's specific to one corporation. I don't have any proof
In Starbuck's case, they popularized fair trade coffee and they offered their part time employees health insurance way before any federal mandate. There are plenty of other examples as well for other companies.
> If you're suggesting that my thoughts lead to this idea then I'm being misunderstood.
Ok you're advocating being an asshole towards what you feel are a powerful group of people. In my opinion it's not that far off from saying, "Hey this group of people are wealthy and stingy. Let's take their stuff, and make it legal to put them in gas chambers because they're ruining our country."
Drawing a line between believing that it's not unethical to violate Starbucks' trademark and Hitler is jaw dropping, and really pretty hurtful. I don't think we share enough common ground to continue this discussion. I apologize if I've offended.
I agree that "because I can" is causing enormous problems. The most damaging perpetrators of this are these corporate super-organisms (Starbucks being just one example) and sociopathic assholes (this includes patent trolls).
In dealing with either of those entities (but not each-other!) we do the world a disservice holding ourselves to a one-sided ethical yardstick. Fuck ethics when dealing with them. Play by their rules.