Moved from SockPuppet...

The group isn't some abstract other that is in opposition to individual interests, but a collective of all the individual interests working together for a SuperordinateGoal.

I dunno, these days I'd say groups are both. On the one hand, there is no group; there's just a bunch of people. On the other hand, it's possible for groups to have "a life of their own", for instance large joint stock corporations, which sometimes behave in ways more immoral than most of the people in them ever would. I tend to see such organizations as nonconscious symbiotic entities somewhat distinct from humans. Perhaps this should be moved to another page. I think it's best for everybody to focus on the collections of individuals view when possible (because that's what groups should be, ideally), but to be aware that problems may crop of in the form of a "group entity" acting in opposition to peoples' interests. -- BayleShanks

Are you sure they would act more immoral than anyone would? Clearly someone had to have the idea to do something illegal, or someone had to shirk responsibility. Actually, there is a different GroupPsychology that is worth exploring here. -- SunirShah

Depends. In some cases the "evil" is distributed; for instance, one department makes a promise on behalf of the company (for example, promising a town that such-and-such new factory will never do such-and-such bad thing), and someone else breaks it. In this case, it is possible for immorality to be done by the entity without anyone approving. However, some entities tend to do this a lot; I bet that sometimes the structure (including incentive system) is set up in such a way to ensure this kind of thing happening (sometimes the structure may be set that way accidentally) -- in such a case I think it makes sense to speak of the entity having an immorality.

Even if management approves of certain actions, in many cases I think the incentive system of companies may differentially promote people who are willing to look the other way from questionable but profitable company actions (you could test this by sampling managers and seeing if their ethics differ from those of a random sample from all employees -- I bet they would in many companies). Once again, in such a case the source of the entity's bad behavior is fundamentally in the entity's structure. -- BayleShanks

Surveying ethics is tricky because people say and do very different things. Is there a qualitative difference between a manager who pads an invoice and an employee who pilfers office supplies, or just a difference in degree?

I think your first point about structural malfeasance is actually quite insightful and worth exploring, but your second point regarding incentives I don't think digs deep enough. The profit motive doesn't come from corporations but from human nature. Some might blame capitalism, but it's simply just the basic human impulse of greed, present under all social systems for all time.

Social systems improve over time to provide BalancingForces to such impulses, thus increasing freedom. One problem often is that corporations can deflect responsibility from the individuals actually responsible, either legally through limited liability, or structurally say by withholding pertinent information. It's insufficient to use monetary penalties for some of these crimes either, as social injustices are not actually liabilities.

Consider this case which sums up the points above succinctly. I heard Bruce Cockburn at the Tulip Festival attest in a song that his brother knew a baker in India who had cut his flour with pesticide to increase his profit. Note here that the simple impulse of greed was not due to a corporate incentive. However, I was thinking that some fringe ideologies hold that the baker would get sufficiently punished by the market in the form of lost customers, both the actual dead ones who cannot do repeat business, and from word of mouth that he was the Baker of Death, thus teaching him a lesson to not do that again.

Obviously, the problem with this is that we are equating the punishment for manslaughter to, say, if the baker had switched from high quality flour to really bad tasting low quality flour. If the baker had to pay restitution, it only exacerbates the punishment, but the problem isn't one of magnitude. The baker deserves a wholly different form of punishment, a "social" punishment to fit the "social" crime, say CommunityExile (prison). But how do you CommunityExile an organization? -- SunirShah

If the organization is incorporated you can withdraw its charter. It no longer exists in the public interest. Other than that, trying to educate and organize around the issues, like http://www.corpwatch.org/ http://www.corporations.org/

Just as greed is part of human nature, so are kindness, community and looking out for each other. -- MarkDilley

Withdrawing the corporate charter is a bureaucratic or legal punishment suitable for a bureaucratic or legal crime. That equates the punishment for manslaughter to failing to renew a license. -- SunirShah