On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 02:34:04 +0000, williamwright
wrote:

On 21/11/2020 21:21, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 20:18:22 +0000, williamwright
wrote:

It is determined by the 'what the
market will stand' principle.

Often (especially these days) but not always.

Always when there are shareholders.

Only the mercenary ones that seem feature in your world.

Now now! That's a bit harsh!

It isn't when you use the word 'always' when it's obviously not the
case (and you go on to admit).

I can only speak as I find.

We are back to the circles you move in then? ;-)

There is some
genuine philanthropy in business I grant you, but there is far more
virtue signaling, publicity gaining, tax avoidance,

Yes, I'm sure there is some of that.

and green-washing.

So can we at least agree that millions of people around the world are
dying from pollution that weren't say 200 years ago?

Can we agree that people living *with* nature are likely to have a
lower carbon footprint (and the demonstrable results stated above)
than say you?

If you can concede such things then I would be interested to hear what
you think we should do (if anything) to try to combat a further
escalation?

No-one is going to stand up in a
board meeting and advocate a policy that reduces profits.

It depends why the profits might become reduced. There are many modern
/ progressive companies who have shareholders specifically because of
their green or human rights considerations.

See above. Public relations.

As an experiment, just try to think there might be people out there
who naturally consider others (inc other animals) along with
themselves? (Crazy I know but give it a go). ;-)

That's not that I couldn't have made use of the extra cash of course,
but as long as I could live reasonably comfortably that was all I
*needed*.

Ah now, leaving aside my point below, some people have the attitude that
you display, whist others think, "There might be a rainy day ahead. I
need to maximise my income and save."

Yup, and there is nothing wrong with that ... and it can be done
whilst not fleecing anyone.

Of course it can.

Good.

That's what I did.

Good.

And I paid my taxes.

You say that like you were being benevolent. ;-)

And I did
freebies for hospices and dogs' homes.

That wasn't just virtue signaling and publicity gaining then?


For some people, *and businesses* money isn't the most important
thing. Of course it *is* important, in that they need to cover their
costs, pay wages and invest in their future, it'd just many have good
ethics as well.

Can't beat my ethics Tim.

Erm, only when it comes to *some* other animals?

OOI, *why* are you happy to care for a dog but not happy to care for a
baby sheep? What is it about either that makes you differentiate in
such a polarised way? What logic or ethics do you use to treat those
creatures so differently?

I think you're falling into the trap of
thinking that only people with your mindset can be ethical.

No, not at all, I just go by what people (say they) do.

Eg, you initially stated 'always' and have now accepted that it wasn't
'always'. You say you care for animals but clearly only care for
*some* animals. The devil re someone's ethics 'overall' can sometimes
be in the detail, even if you can't actually see it yourself ... yet.
;-)

Cheers, T i m