> attempting to put it on a morally high ground is ridiculous
Is it?
In my view, organizations are almost living entities in and of themselves. They can become more ruthless than any individual because of their critical mass and "mission".
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but we have org A ("business"), primarily self-interested, and org B ("non-profit"), which isn't. Sure, there's potential for evil and corruption everywhere, but that doesn't make their two starting points one and the same.
Aren't organizations built for maximizing profits inherently on a lower moral ground than non-profit organizations?
> Aren't organizations built for maximizing profits inherently on a lower moral ground than non-profit organizations[1]?
No, certainly not inherently. Even if we define moral ground as the degree of altruism of motives (which is way too narrow in my opinion), non-profits do not inherently pursue altruistic goals, but rather non-monetizable goals.
But if we define it as something that the society should encourage because it's beneficial to the society then for-profits are arguably on a higher ground since they are demonstrably beneficial to people who are willingly giving them money while all some non-profits can show in their defense is abstract ideas. KKK is a non-profit.
But if we define it as something that the society should
encourage because it's beneficial to the society then
for-profits are arguably on a higher ground ... KKK is a
non-profit.
And Comcast is a company. Just because people give money to an organization and extract value from it doesn't mean society should encourage that company's behavior. Your argument makes no sense. You're saying:
1. Moral ground is "something society encourages because
it's beneficial to society"
2. People give for-profit companies their money
3. Therefore, companies have a higher moral ground since
companies are "demonstrably beneficial to people"
How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? You then throw an example of a bad non-profit (KKK) as I can equally give you an example of a bad company (Comcast) that takes people's money, provides a necessary service to their customers, but is by all accounts one of the worst, most parasitic organizations on the planet.
The reason you don't understand my argument after reinterpreting it is because you have for some reason excluded a few important words from it: "inherently", "should" (as in "should encourage") and "willingly". I am inclined to think your confusion is intentional and therefore explaining myself will be a waste of time.
Please, that's a cop out. I didn't re-interpret anything and "should" doesn't add anything to that sentence.
"if we define it as something that the society should encourage
because it's beneficial to the society then for-profits are
arguably on a higher ground since they are demonstrably beneficial
to people who are willingly giving them money"
That's a direct quote from your comment. I merely asked how you got from A to B. How are for-profits "demonstrably beneficial" given your definition of moral ground? You're stating a definition and just stating a conclusion you draw with no actual substance into how you're making that conclusion.
I challenge your statement that for-profits are "demonstrably beneficial" merely because people give them money!
Technically, yes, but definitely not what I was talking about, as I defined non-profit as an organization which isn't primarily self-interested. The KKK isn't for-profit, but it is for-power, and definitely self-interested. I also included "Sure, there's potential for evil and corruption everywhere" to avoid such a strawman argument.
> non-profits do not inherently pursue altruistic goals
They usually do. But we seem to disagree as to what a non-profit is, so for the sake of the argument, I'm talking about altruistic non-profits, not the KKK. Let's include non-power in that non-profit definition.
> But if we define it as something that the society should encourage because it's beneficial to the society then for-profits are arguably on a higher ground since they are demonstrably beneficial to people who are willingly giving them money
Willingly? In theoretical economics/free markets/etc, sure. In real life, there are monopolies, lobbying, politics and all sorts of bullshit. You are surely aware that as a consumer you're often stuck with picking the least-worst of your options. If there's one ISP serving your area and you hate them, your free will spans between 'no internet' and 'pay those scumbags'.
"Organizations" includes businesses[1]. I'm making a distinction between for-profit (/for-power?) organizations, vs. not, in order to compare their baseline "moral ground".
Is it?
In my view, organizations are almost living entities in and of themselves. They can become more ruthless than any individual because of their critical mass and "mission".
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but we have org A ("business"), primarily self-interested, and org B ("non-profit"), which isn't. Sure, there's potential for evil and corruption everywhere, but that doesn't make their two starting points one and the same.
Aren't organizations built for maximizing profits inherently on a lower moral ground than non-profit organizations?
edit: removed non-existent "[1]"