Restraining Those Who Wish To Profit at the Expense of the Rights of Others — Follow Up
The reader who sent me the article yesterday on which my post Restraining Those Who Wish To Profit at the Expense of the Rights of Others was based comments:
I notice in your response that you used the word “corruption” to describe the corporate polluters. That might be too strong a word to use in general. This behavior, as proposed by Jane Jacobs in her book, “Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics,” another oldie but goodie, is a symptom of there being more than one set of codes of ethics. That way of thinking of course doesn’t change the grievous nature of the ongoing assault, but it might change the way in which one goes about correcting the situation.
Thanks very much. You’re certainly correct that people and groups display a wide range of ethical behavior, and that some corporations are extremely active as good citizens and stewards of the planet. Yet I’m not sure how that changes the way one goes about correcting the situation. Generally, we need regulations with sharp teeth in them that govern the depletion of natural resources, the pollution of our skies and waters, etc. The fact that some groups may voluntarily restrain their behavior where others need to be coerced does not, in my view, change matters.
Perhaps I’m missing something here. Certainly wouldn’t be the first time.
Some groups may avoid destructive behavior, but only if that does not put them at a competitive disadvantage. For example, Andrew Carnegie, the 19th century steel magnate, spoke in favor of the 40 hour work week but stated that his steel mills, because of competition, would not reduce the work week since doing so would make them uncompetitive with other steel mills. His employees worked 12 hours a day, six or seven days a week, and complained that their long work hours made the Carnegie libraries useless for them. Carnegie stated that the 40 hour work week could be implemented only by government mandate.
From the history of the U.S. and what is currently happening in countries which do not enforce environmental regulations, it should be obvious that regulation is necessary.