Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: The Corporation  (Read 385 times)

Candide

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
    • View Profile
The Corporation
« on: November 06, 2004, 12:39:41 AM »
Has anyone else seen The Corporation, the documentary? 

If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend doing so (http://www.thecorporation.com/). 

Matokah

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1556
  • Ice? In Sacramento? Hmm. . .
    • View Profile
Re: The Corporation
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2004, 12:46:22 AM »
I saw it a few months ago.  I thought it was great (but depressing at the same time).  The psychologist who was interviewed about making commercials "addictive" for kids made me want to wretch.
University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law 2010!!

(LSN)

Candide

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
    • View Profile
Re: The Corporation
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2004, 12:51:03 AM »
The psychologist who was interviewed about making commercials "addictive" for kids made me want to wretch.

"Is it ethical?  I don't know."

Matokah

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1556
  • Ice? In Sacramento? Hmm. . .
    • View Profile
Re: The Corporation
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2004, 01:37:22 AM »
The psychologist who was interviewed about making commercials "addictive" for kids made me want to wretch.

"Is it ethical?  I don't know."

I do believe that psychologists have to take an ethics course before they can get a PhD or PsyD, so she's either blatently ignorant or lying.
University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law 2010!!

(LSN)

buster

  • Guest
Re: The Corporation
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2004, 10:30:05 AM »
Is there a definitive answer for every situation to which the question "is it ethical" can be applied?


The psychologist who was interviewed about making commercials "addictive" for kids made me want to wretch.

"Is it ethical?  I don't know."

I do believe that psychologists have to take an ethics course before they can get a PhD or PsyD, so she's either blatently ignorant or lying.

amarain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
    • View Profile
    • Atlanta Private Investigator
Re: The Corporation
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2004, 11:02:03 AM »
Just because you take a course in ethics doesn't mean you're going to actually adhere to any ethical standards.

Spallenzani

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 223
  • Proud to be a moran
    • View Profile
    • Catallarchy
    • Email
Re: The Corporation
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2004, 05:48:24 PM »
I liked the Economist's excellent take down of this anti-capitalist propaganda piece:

Although the moviemakers claim ownership of the company-as-psychopath idea, it predates them by a century, and rightfully belongs, in its full form, to Max Weber, the German sociologist. For Weber, the key form of social organisation defining the modern age was bureaucracy. Bureaucracies have flourished because their efficient and rational division and application of labour is powerful. But a cost attends this power. As cogs in a larger, purposeful machine, people become alienated from the traditional morals that guide human relationships as they pursue the goal of the collective organisation. There is, in Weber's famous phrase, a “parcelling-out of the soul”.

For Weber, the greater potential tyranny lay not with the economic bureaucracies of capitalism, but the state bureaucracies of socialism. The psychopathic national socialism of Nazi Germany, communism of Stalinist Soviet rule and fascism of imperial Japan (whose oppressive bureaucratic machinery has survived well into the modern era) surely bear Weber out. Infinitely more powerful than firms and far less accountable for its actions, the modern state has the capacity to behave even in evolved western democracies as a more dangerous psychopath than any corporation can ever hope to become: witness the environmental destruction wreaked by Japan's construction ministry.

The makers of “The Corporation” counter that the state was not the subject of their film. Fair point. But they have done more than produce a thought-provoking account of the firm. Their film also invites its audience to weigh up the benefits of privatisation versus public ownership. It dwells on the familiar problem of the corporate corruption of politics and regulatory agencies that weakens public oversight of privately owned firms charged with delivering public goods. But that is only half the story. The film has nothing to say about the immense damage that can also flow from state ownership. Instead, there is a misty-eyed alignment of the state with the public interest. Run that one past the people of, say, North Korea.