Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
The Chinese police state is a great investment says US hedge funds.
The US economy may be on decline but US hedge funds investors considers the Chinese police state to be a good investment for our global economy.
“China’s Hot Stock: Orwell Inc is the headlines over an article in the NYTimes published September 19, 2007.
“In a stunning report in the New York Times last week, correspondent Keith Bradsher documented the rise of China's electronic surveillance industry, whose leading companies have incorporated themselves in the United States and obtained the lion's share of their capital from U.S. hedge funds. Though ostensibly private, these companies are a for-profit adjunct of the Chinese government.
Do US corporations have any moral responsibility to the citizens of the US?
Do US corporations have any moral responsibility to the people living on this planet?
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
Corporations are legal entities and as such have no concept of morality it the people who run them that determines how they behave.
Having said that it is good business sense to have a sense of responsibility as public sentiment is such that people are increasingly not prepared top tolerate business practices they consider wrong-just look at the fair trade movement or the boycott of BP that had them reeling under public pressure.
The laws governing them are set by government and it is a myth that they can actually be supranational. They might think it but got in their country of origin can pass laws to control them if they want to. That is the key point, if there is no sentiment that wants to curb them they get free rein.
Do US corporations have any moral responsibility to the citizens of the US?
That's one for the Americans to decide for themselves. You can't insist on free trade for yourselves and then stop other countries imports without it eventually being bad for business. If your corporations don't trade in a fair manner it eventually hits your economy.
Do US corporations have any moral responsibility to the people living on this planet?
They had best be aware of sentiment in other countries else they will find themselves unable to trade with them. It's one of the illusions that the rest of the world needs American trade. It's vitally important of course but the rest of the world is a big place to trade in with new markets developing all the time and new trading blocs emerging.
Even microsoft looks to be getting it's wings clipped
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21988 ... anti-trust
The European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg has backed the European Commission's judgement on the 2004 antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.
Microsoft is now facing a record €497m fine as well as having to pay 80 per cent of the legal costs of the case.
What are they going to do now-go home and refuse to trade? Our exports to the US Someone else would just take the market. You can almost hear all the linux distribitors shouting for joy at the prospect. Korea and Japan have also fined them-just think of how good microsoft could be if they spend all that energy on product design instead of trying to stifle competition.
Having said that it is good business sense to have a sense of responsibility as public sentiment is such that people are increasingly not prepared top tolerate business practices they consider wrong-just look at the fair trade movement or the boycott of BP that had them reeling under public pressure.
The laws governing them are set by government and it is a myth that they can actually be supranational. They might think it but got in their country of origin can pass laws to control them if they want to. That is the key point, if there is no sentiment that wants to curb them they get free rein.
Do US corporations have any moral responsibility to the citizens of the US?
That's one for the Americans to decide for themselves. You can't insist on free trade for yourselves and then stop other countries imports without it eventually being bad for business. If your corporations don't trade in a fair manner it eventually hits your economy.
Do US corporations have any moral responsibility to the people living on this planet?
They had best be aware of sentiment in other countries else they will find themselves unable to trade with them. It's one of the illusions that the rest of the world needs American trade. It's vitally important of course but the rest of the world is a big place to trade in with new markets developing all the time and new trading blocs emerging.
Even microsoft looks to be getting it's wings clipped
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21988 ... anti-trust
The European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg has backed the European Commission's judgement on the 2004 antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.
Microsoft is now facing a record €497m fine as well as having to pay 80 per cent of the legal costs of the case.
What are they going to do now-go home and refuse to trade? Our exports to the US Someone else would just take the market. You can almost hear all the linux distribitors shouting for joy at the prospect. Korea and Japan have also fined them-just think of how good microsoft could be if they spend all that energy on product design instead of trying to stifle competition.
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
You make a good point.
It seems to me that when a corporation does its business only within a nation the citizens will keep them from egregious foul behavior but when they become international all bets are off. An example is discrimination. Globalization sets corporations free like they never have been.
It seems to me that when a corporation does its business only within a nation the citizens will keep them from egregious foul behavior but when they become international all bets are off. An example is discrimination. Globalization sets corporations free like they never have been.
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
Corporations may not have a legally enforceable moral responsibility to either shareholders or the public at large, but apparently many have adopted such a position. Proof of this is the number of Mutual Funds consisting of companies that have taken strong positions of one or another type of moral responsibility, thus appealing to investors that would not invest otherwise. That's smart marketing.
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
Hi there-
I think corporations, the entity, has a responsibility to the planet. I don't know what this has to do with morals or philosophy but then again I'm not an intellectual. It seems clearcut. One thing I am reminded of when I think of corporations is that most people who head these things started small and then because of popular interest got bigger and then they sort of lost themselves. Too impersonal a corporation is I think. But of course, everyone has a sense of responsibility to our planet we all must otherwise we wouldn't be human. The thing is that the power of money seems to have distorted our vision of responsibility. I sometimes read these articles or hear stories about how this or this place is doing that to those people and I'm scratching my head wondering if this is true how on this planet can those in charge let this be??? Are they absolutely crazy or something??? So then being the good consumer I am I decide to boycott such and such a place because I think they are out for themselves only and couldn't give a care for anyone else in the world. Then I get all mean and angry just thinking about economics. I just hate that discipline, economics. Couldn't understand it in a million years. I don't even know what a hedge fund is. And I also think that China's business sector is full of bullshit. They think they are so high and mighty with the way they pump out all this cheap little crap. They should get a clue. So should business people in most 'developed' countries including the US. I mean who do you all think you are? Santa Claus???
Just kidding :-3
Erin
I think corporations, the entity, has a responsibility to the planet. I don't know what this has to do with morals or philosophy but then again I'm not an intellectual. It seems clearcut. One thing I am reminded of when I think of corporations is that most people who head these things started small and then because of popular interest got bigger and then they sort of lost themselves. Too impersonal a corporation is I think. But of course, everyone has a sense of responsibility to our planet we all must otherwise we wouldn't be human. The thing is that the power of money seems to have distorted our vision of responsibility. I sometimes read these articles or hear stories about how this or this place is doing that to those people and I'm scratching my head wondering if this is true how on this planet can those in charge let this be??? Are they absolutely crazy or something??? So then being the good consumer I am I decide to boycott such and such a place because I think they are out for themselves only and couldn't give a care for anyone else in the world. Then I get all mean and angry just thinking about economics. I just hate that discipline, economics. Couldn't understand it in a million years. I don't even know what a hedge fund is. And I also think that China's business sector is full of bullshit. They think they are so high and mighty with the way they pump out all this cheap little crap. They should get a clue. So should business people in most 'developed' countries including the US. I mean who do you all think you are? Santa Claus???
Just kidding :-3
Erin
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
coberst;697516 wrote: You make a good point.
It seems to me that when a corporation does its business only within a nation the citizens will keep them from egregious foul behavior but when they become international all bets are off. An example is discrimination. Globalization sets corporations free like they never have been.
It also means that people are more aware of the effect they can have on other countries-or indeed their own. That's why you now have such a growth in the demand for fair trade goods in Europe. Many people take these issues seriously and it's getting harder and harder for corporations to ignore them. In the past corporations took over whole countries and manipulated governments in to supporting them with troops if needed. It just takes a brief trawl through history to see what I mean, trade and empire have always been joined t the hip. Come to that just have a look at the middle east today. But they're not getting away with it like they used to. people are objecting more and more strongly.
posted by watermark
I think corporations, the entity, has a responsibility to the planet. I don't know what this has to do with morals or philosophy but then again I'm not an intellectual.
What has being an intellectual got to do with anything? Not sure I would know what one is but I'm fairly sure anyone claiming to be isn't one.
It seems to me that when a corporation does its business only within a nation the citizens will keep them from egregious foul behavior but when they become international all bets are off. An example is discrimination. Globalization sets corporations free like they never have been.
It also means that people are more aware of the effect they can have on other countries-or indeed their own. That's why you now have such a growth in the demand for fair trade goods in Europe. Many people take these issues seriously and it's getting harder and harder for corporations to ignore them. In the past corporations took over whole countries and manipulated governments in to supporting them with troops if needed. It just takes a brief trawl through history to see what I mean, trade and empire have always been joined t the hip. Come to that just have a look at the middle east today. But they're not getting away with it like they used to. people are objecting more and more strongly.
posted by watermark
I think corporations, the entity, has a responsibility to the planet. I don't know what this has to do with morals or philosophy but then again I'm not an intellectual.
What has being an intellectual got to do with anything? Not sure I would know what one is but I'm fairly sure anyone claiming to be isn't one.
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
Intellectuals: Mostly Lickspittle Sycophants?
All thought is saturated with egocentric and sociocentric presuppositions. That is, all thought contains highly motivating bias centered in the self or in ideologies such as political, religious, and economic theories. Some individuals are conscious of these internal forces but most people are not.
Those individuals who are conscious of these biases within their thinking can try to rid their judgments of that influence. Those who are not conscious, or little conscious of such bias, are bound to display a significant degree of irrational tendencies in their judgments.
“Can the intellectual, who is supposed to have a special and perhaps professional concern with truth, escape from or rise above the partiality and distortions of ideology?
Our culture has tended to channel intellectuals, or perhaps more properly those who function as intellectuals, into academic professions. Gramsci makes the accurate distinction that all men and women “are intellectuals¦but all do not have the function of intellectuals in society.
An intellectual might be properly defined as those who are primarily or professionally concerned with matters of the mind and the imagination but who are socially non-attached. “The intellectual is thought of not as someone who displays great mental or imaginative ability but as someone who applies those abilities in more general areas such as religion, philosophy and social and political issues. It is the involvement in general and controversy outside of a specialization that is considered as the hallmark of an intellectual; it is a matter of choice of self definition, choice is supreme here.
Even anti-ideological is ideological. If partisanship can be defended servility cannot; many have allowed themselves to become the tools of others.
We have moved into an age when the university is no longer an ivory tower and knowledge is king but knowledge has become a commodity and educators have become instruments of power; the university has become a privately owned think-tank. Brzerzinsky recognizes that
“A profound change in the intellectual community itself is inherent in this development. The largely humanist-oriented, occasionally ideological minded intellectual dissenter , who saw his role largely in terms of proffering social critiques, is rapidly being displaced either by experts and specialist, who become involved in special government undertakings, or by generalist-integrators, who become house-ideologues for those in power, providing overall intellectual integration for disparate actions.
The subordination to power is not just at the individual level but also at the institutional level. Government funds are made available to universities and colleges not for use as they deem fit but for specific government needs. Private industry plays even a larger role in providing funds for educational institutions to perform management and business study. Private industry is not inclined ‘to waste’ money on activities that do not contribute to the bottom line. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’
Each intellectual is spouting a different ideology, how does the individual choose what ideology? Trotsky once said “only a participant can be a profound spectator. Is detachment then a virtue? To suggest that intellectuals rise above ideology is impractical. Explicit commitment is preferable to bogus neutrality. But truth is an indispensable touchstone.
I think that the proper role for the intellectual is commitment plus detachment. Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?
Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics Bhikhu Parekh
All thought is saturated with egocentric and sociocentric presuppositions. That is, all thought contains highly motivating bias centered in the self or in ideologies such as political, religious, and economic theories. Some individuals are conscious of these internal forces but most people are not.
Those individuals who are conscious of these biases within their thinking can try to rid their judgments of that influence. Those who are not conscious, or little conscious of such bias, are bound to display a significant degree of irrational tendencies in their judgments.
“Can the intellectual, who is supposed to have a special and perhaps professional concern with truth, escape from or rise above the partiality and distortions of ideology?
Our culture has tended to channel intellectuals, or perhaps more properly those who function as intellectuals, into academic professions. Gramsci makes the accurate distinction that all men and women “are intellectuals¦but all do not have the function of intellectuals in society.
An intellectual might be properly defined as those who are primarily or professionally concerned with matters of the mind and the imagination but who are socially non-attached. “The intellectual is thought of not as someone who displays great mental or imaginative ability but as someone who applies those abilities in more general areas such as religion, philosophy and social and political issues. It is the involvement in general and controversy outside of a specialization that is considered as the hallmark of an intellectual; it is a matter of choice of self definition, choice is supreme here.
Even anti-ideological is ideological. If partisanship can be defended servility cannot; many have allowed themselves to become the tools of others.
We have moved into an age when the university is no longer an ivory tower and knowledge is king but knowledge has become a commodity and educators have become instruments of power; the university has become a privately owned think-tank. Brzerzinsky recognizes that
“A profound change in the intellectual community itself is inherent in this development. The largely humanist-oriented, occasionally ideological minded intellectual dissenter , who saw his role largely in terms of proffering social critiques, is rapidly being displaced either by experts and specialist, who become involved in special government undertakings, or by generalist-integrators, who become house-ideologues for those in power, providing overall intellectual integration for disparate actions.
The subordination to power is not just at the individual level but also at the institutional level. Government funds are made available to universities and colleges not for use as they deem fit but for specific government needs. Private industry plays even a larger role in providing funds for educational institutions to perform management and business study. Private industry is not inclined ‘to waste’ money on activities that do not contribute to the bottom line. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’
Each intellectual is spouting a different ideology, how does the individual choose what ideology? Trotsky once said “only a participant can be a profound spectator. Is detachment then a virtue? To suggest that intellectuals rise above ideology is impractical. Explicit commitment is preferable to bogus neutrality. But truth is an indispensable touchstone.
I think that the proper role for the intellectual is commitment plus detachment. Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?
Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics Bhikhu Parekh
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?
Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics Bhikhu Parekh
Your thoughts on Noam Chomsky?
Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics Bhikhu Parekh
Your thoughts on Noam Chomsky?
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
Lon;698070 wrote: Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?
Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics Bhikhu Parekh
Your thoughts on Noam Chomsky?
Chomsky as linguist has been shown to be mostly off the mark (as I understand, I am not an authority but have studied a view of cognitive science that has seemed to negate the Chomsky view). Chomsky as author of political views I cannot say much. I have only read small bits and pieces of what he writes. I do not read him because he seems to be too dogmatic for my taste.
Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics Bhikhu Parekh
Your thoughts on Noam Chomsky?
Chomsky as linguist has been shown to be mostly off the mark (as I understand, I am not an authority but have studied a view of cognitive science that has seemed to negate the Chomsky view). Chomsky as author of political views I cannot say much. I have only read small bits and pieces of what he writes. I do not read him because he seems to be too dogmatic for my taste.
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
Lon;698070 wrote: Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?
Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics Bhikhu Parekh
Your thoughts on Noam Chomsky?
Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?
Most of the intellectuals IMO are writing for each other rather than to achieve anything very much.
Your thoughts on Noam Chomsky?
I had not heard of noam chomsky until someone mentioned him on this forum. Same with ayn Rand. Since then I seem to keep coming across him. He has a peculiarly American way of looking at things-which is kind of what you'd expect-that always kind of jars since I'm not American. Like a lot of US political commentators they seem he seems to assume the rest of the world wanders along waiting to see what the US is going to do.
posted by coberst
Do US corporations have any moral responsibility to the people living on this planet?
The question seems to imply that US corporations will have a choice in the matter.
The reality is very different in that if they don't show responsibility they will find their goods being boycotted and nations taking action against them. The EU is getting increasingly less inclined top put up with unfair trade practices just as third world countries are beginning to realise they don't have to take it either. There both the US and the EU are culpable (I would put European robber barons up against American ones any day of the week). The world bank is seen very much as an American and eu creature imposing their will on third world countries to their detriment and to the benefit of multi nationals. But the world is getting increasingly hostile to that kind of behaviour. Ethical ethical funds are no longer the joke the right wing would like to think they are. Many do very well in terms of returns and many will invest purely on ethical grounds. Mind you I don't know how they do in the US but in the UK and Europe they are a growing sector. Globalisation may be seen to benefit large corporations but it also plays a large part in politicising populaces and giving them the economic clout to make their voices heard.
Banking institutions are also vulnerable to public sentiment. The Bank of Scotland had to rather hastily withdraw from a business connection with Pat Robertson once it became known because of the very vocal hostility that also hit them in the balance sheets..
Bear in mind I haven't actually read any of his stuff in detail mainly because the first few pages usually put me off. Much seems very derivative and not very original and the terms left, right, and liberal seem to have very different connotations on either side of the Atlantic despite having the same meaning so far as the dictionary is concerned. Rather than political debate of substance in the US it seems to be more a verbal war of labels and insults.
Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics Bhikhu Parekh
Your thoughts on Noam Chomsky?
Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?
Most of the intellectuals IMO are writing for each other rather than to achieve anything very much.
Your thoughts on Noam Chomsky?
I had not heard of noam chomsky until someone mentioned him on this forum. Same with ayn Rand. Since then I seem to keep coming across him. He has a peculiarly American way of looking at things-which is kind of what you'd expect-that always kind of jars since I'm not American. Like a lot of US political commentators they seem he seems to assume the rest of the world wanders along waiting to see what the US is going to do.
posted by coberst
Do US corporations have any moral responsibility to the people living on this planet?
The question seems to imply that US corporations will have a choice in the matter.
The reality is very different in that if they don't show responsibility they will find their goods being boycotted and nations taking action against them. The EU is getting increasingly less inclined top put up with unfair trade practices just as third world countries are beginning to realise they don't have to take it either. There both the US and the EU are culpable (I would put European robber barons up against American ones any day of the week). The world bank is seen very much as an American and eu creature imposing their will on third world countries to their detriment and to the benefit of multi nationals. But the world is getting increasingly hostile to that kind of behaviour. Ethical ethical funds are no longer the joke the right wing would like to think they are. Many do very well in terms of returns and many will invest purely on ethical grounds. Mind you I don't know how they do in the US but in the UK and Europe they are a growing sector. Globalisation may be seen to benefit large corporations but it also plays a large part in politicising populaces and giving them the economic clout to make their voices heard.
Banking institutions are also vulnerable to public sentiment. The Bank of Scotland had to rather hastily withdraw from a business connection with Pat Robertson once it became known because of the very vocal hostility that also hit them in the balance sheets..
Bear in mind I haven't actually read any of his stuff in detail mainly because the first few pages usually put me off. Much seems very derivative and not very original and the terms left, right, and liberal seem to have very different connotations on either side of the Atlantic despite having the same meaning so far as the dictionary is concerned. Rather than political debate of substance in the US it seems to be more a verbal war of labels and insults.
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
GMC----------------I am surprised about your comment on Noam Chomsky.
He is considered in this country to be highly critical of the U.S. and it's Foreign Policy. The Right considers him to be pretty Left Wing.
Some of his commentary can be heard online by putting his name in "You Tube".
He is considered in this country to be highly critical of the U.S. and it's Foreign Policy. The Right considers him to be pretty Left Wing.
Some of his commentary can be heard online by putting his name in "You Tube".
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
Lon;699035 wrote: GMC----------------I am surprised about your comment on Noam Chomsky.
He is considered in this country to be highly critical of the U.S. and it's Foreign Policy. The Right considers him to be pretty Left Wing.
Some of his commentary can be heard online by putting his name in "You Tube".
Like I said I am not familiar with what he has to say. My curiosity is tweaked enough that I will have a look at youtube when I get the time. I occasionally watch CNN or cbs but most American political commentators are unknown outside the US, For instance I've heard of Dan rather but never seen any of his programmes. Have you heard of Jeremy Paxman? Insulting the prime minister is a national sport not unpatriotic in the least.
How does criticising US foreign policy make him left wing? Surely he's not the only one doing so? OK I kind of know the answer to that one but he's hardly a dangerous radical.
Right wing and left wing have different connotations here-right wing is reactionary pro establishment edging towards fascism, left wing is for change edging towards socialismn with all shades in between. A liberal is a cuddly thing in the middle not the bogey man it seems to be in the US. You get left and right wings of the various parties
Both our main political parties are kind of right of centre at the moment which is why labour are losing grass roots support up and down the country and especially in Scotland where they look set to lose a few seats at the next election. Gordon Brown himself might have a problem (OK wishful thinking on my part) But the safe labour seat in the next door constituency was lost at the last election.
Many here are extremely critical of US and UK foreign policy, being opposed to the government in power and the war in Iraq doesn't make you left wing necessarily. Nor would anyone making the charge of being unpatriotic or supporting terrorism get very far without being ridiculed or in some circles getting a smack in the mouth. Taking the **** out of government and poking fun at them is a very old British tradition
You will not find any British politician opposed to socialised medicine, for instance, for the simple reason they want to be elected. The debate is now the NHS should be run not whether we should have it or not.
He is considered in this country to be highly critical of the U.S. and it's Foreign Policy. The Right considers him to be pretty Left Wing.
Some of his commentary can be heard online by putting his name in "You Tube".
Like I said I am not familiar with what he has to say. My curiosity is tweaked enough that I will have a look at youtube when I get the time. I occasionally watch CNN or cbs but most American political commentators are unknown outside the US, For instance I've heard of Dan rather but never seen any of his programmes. Have you heard of Jeremy Paxman? Insulting the prime minister is a national sport not unpatriotic in the least.
How does criticising US foreign policy make him left wing? Surely he's not the only one doing so? OK I kind of know the answer to that one but he's hardly a dangerous radical.
Right wing and left wing have different connotations here-right wing is reactionary pro establishment edging towards fascism, left wing is for change edging towards socialismn with all shades in between. A liberal is a cuddly thing in the middle not the bogey man it seems to be in the US. You get left and right wings of the various parties
Both our main political parties are kind of right of centre at the moment which is why labour are losing grass roots support up and down the country and especially in Scotland where they look set to lose a few seats at the next election. Gordon Brown himself might have a problem (OK wishful thinking on my part) But the safe labour seat in the next door constituency was lost at the last election.
Many here are extremely critical of US and UK foreign policy, being opposed to the government in power and the war in Iraq doesn't make you left wing necessarily. Nor would anyone making the charge of being unpatriotic or supporting terrorism get very far without being ridiculed or in some circles getting a smack in the mouth. Taking the **** out of government and poking fun at them is a very old British tradition
You will not find any British politician opposed to socialised medicine, for instance, for the simple reason they want to be elected. The debate is now the NHS should be run not whether we should have it or not.
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
"What has being an intellectual got to do with anything? Not sure I would know what one is but I'm fairly sure anyone claiming to be isn't one.
Hi gmc-
I wanted to get back to you sooner but was delayed. I don't know what intellectual has to do with this except that the original topic had been placed in a context that seemed pretty abstract to me, so I just wanted to say that some issues aren't necessarily driven by intellect only, as in my way of operating for instance. Many times (if you can't already tell
) I can't see things from a detached point of view but instead interject my seemingly unreasonable emotion into issues. Since this was a philosophy thread then I took a leap and decided to tell eveyone that I wasn't an intellectual but that I didn't need to look at this issue as something like this, that it was deemed clearcut in my thinking, which is to say, maybe, that my thinking is driven more by the emotions than by the intellect, and thus the topic of this thread didn't seem to me to be an intellectual problem but one of the human heart. Was this confusing?
Btw- I wish the original topic would be located in some easy to get to place. I can't see the original by coberst and it makes it difficult to remember what he said without extra effort on my part. I'm pretty lazy right about now.
Erin
Hi gmc-
I wanted to get back to you sooner but was delayed. I don't know what intellectual has to do with this except that the original topic had been placed in a context that seemed pretty abstract to me, so I just wanted to say that some issues aren't necessarily driven by intellect only, as in my way of operating for instance. Many times (if you can't already tell
) I can't see things from a detached point of view but instead interject my seemingly unreasonable emotion into issues. Since this was a philosophy thread then I took a leap and decided to tell eveyone that I wasn't an intellectual but that I didn't need to look at this issue as something like this, that it was deemed clearcut in my thinking, which is to say, maybe, that my thinking is driven more by the emotions than by the intellect, and thus the topic of this thread didn't seem to me to be an intellectual problem but one of the human heart. Was this confusing? Btw- I wish the original topic would be located in some easy to get to place. I can't see the original by coberst and it makes it difficult to remember what he said without extra effort on my part. I'm pretty lazy right about now.
Erin
Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
posted by watermark
Since this was a philosophy thread then I took a leap and decided to tell eveyone that I wasn't an intellectual but that I didn't need to look at this issue as something like this, that it was deemed clearcut in my thinking, which is to say, maybe, that my thinking is driven more by the emotions than by the intellect, and thus the topic of this thread didn't seem to me to be an intellectual problem but one of the human heart. Was this confusing?
I can't think of anything that should be the preserve of the intellectual, least of ll philosophy, as if they are somehow better endowed than other human beings to tackle the difficult questions we all ask ourselves.-we have a saying here to describe such individuals (well some of them) all brains and no common sense.
Since this was a philosophy thread then I took a leap and decided to tell eveyone that I wasn't an intellectual but that I didn't need to look at this issue as something like this, that it was deemed clearcut in my thinking, which is to say, maybe, that my thinking is driven more by the emotions than by the intellect, and thus the topic of this thread didn't seem to me to be an intellectual problem but one of the human heart. Was this confusing?
I can't think of anything that should be the preserve of the intellectual, least of ll philosophy, as if they are somehow better endowed than other human beings to tackle the difficult questions we all ask ourselves.-we have a saying here to describe such individuals (well some of them) all brains and no common sense.