Normalization of deviance also contributes towards unethical outcomes, where people would not have selected that outcome originally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance

> 2012, Australian psychologist Gina Perry investigated Milgram's data and writings and concluded that Milgram had manipulated the results, and that there was a "troubling mismatch between (published) descriptions of the experiment and evidence of what actually transpired." She wrote that "only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real and of those, 66% disobeyed the experimenter".[29][30] She described her findings as "an unexpected outcome" that

Its unlikely Milligram played am unbiased role in, if not the sirext cause of the results.

> lots of humans can be at least coerced into doing something extremely unethical.

Experience shows coercion is not necessary most of the time, the siren call of money is all it takes.

Still > 0

> a human may make an "(un)ethical" decision based on their social background, religion, a chat with a pal over a beer about the conundrum, their ability to find a new job, financial situation etc.

The stories they invent to rationalise their behaviour and make them feel good about themselves. Or inhumane political views ie fascism which declares other people worth less, so it's okay to abuse them.

How is a corporation "immortal"?

What is the oldest corporation in the world? I mean, aside from churches and stuff.

Corporations can die or be killed in numerous ways. Not many of them will live forever. Most will barely outlive a normal human's lifespan.

By definition, since a corporation comprises a group of people, it could never outlive the members, should they all die at some point.

Let us also draw a distinction between the "human being" and the "person". A corporation is granted "personhood" but this is not equivalent to "humanity". Being composed of humans, the members of any corporation collectively enjoy their individual rights in most ways.

A "corporate person" is distinct from a "human person", and so we can recognize that "corporate rights" are in a different category, and regulate accordingly.

A corporation cannot be "jailed" but it can be fined, it can be dissolved, it can be sanctioned in many ways. I would say that doing business is a privilege and not a right of a corporation. It is conceivable that their ability to conduct business could be restricted in many ways, such as local only, or non-interstate, or within their home nation. I suppose such restrictions could be roughly analogous to being "jailed"?

I changed my stance on "immoral" corporations:

Legal systems are the ones being "immoral" and "unethical" and "not just", not "righteous", not fair. They represent entire nations and populations while corpos represent interests of subsets of customers and "sponsors".

If corpos are forced to pivot because they are behaving ugly, they will ... otherwise they might lose money (although that is barely an issue anymore, given how you can offset almost any kind of loss via various stock market schemes).

But the entire chain upstream of law enforcement behaves ugly and weak, which is the fault of humanities finest and best earning "engineers".

Just take a sabbatical and fix some of that stuff ...

>> I mean you and your global networks got money and you can even stay undetected, so what the hell is the issue? Personal preference? Damn it, I guess that settles that. <<

It's overwhelmingly exceptionally rare, but famously SBF, Holmes, and Winterkorn.

Jeffrey Skilling, as a major example. Sam Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes, Martin Shkreli, just to name a few

Yeah, it’s exceptionally rare for CEOs, but they’re not the only one’s behaving unethically at work. There’s often a scapegoat.

I find this framing of corporates a bit unsatisfying because it doesn't address hierarchy. By your reckoning, the employees just follow the group norm over their own ethics. Sure, but those norms are handed down by the people in charge (and, with decent overlap, those that have been around longest and have shaped the work culture).

What type of person seeks to be in charge in the corporate world? YMMV but I tend to see the ones who value ethics (e.g. their employees' wellbeing) over results and KPIs tend to burn out, or decide management isn't for them, or avoid seeking out positions of power.

My favourite part about the Milgram experiments is that he originally wanted to prove that obedience was a German trait, and that freedom loving Americans wouldn't obey, which he completely disproved. The results annoyed him so much that he repeated it dozens of times, getting roughly the same result.

The Stanford prison experiment has been debunked many times : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31380664/

- guards received instructions to be cruel from experimenters

- guards were not told they were subjects while prisoners were

- participants were not immersed in the simulation

- experimenters lied about reports from subjects.

Basically it is bad science and we can't conclude anything from it. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that top fortune-500 management have personality traits that make them more likely to engage in unethical behaviour, if only by selection through promotion by crushing others.

> The Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments are the most obvious examples.

BOTH are now considered bad science. BOTH are now used as examples of "how not to do the science".

> The idea that corporate employees are fundamentally "not average" and therefore more prone to unethical behaviour than the general population relies on a dispositional explanation (it's about the person's character).

I did not said nor implied that. Corporate employees in general and Forbes 500 are not the same thing. Corporate employees as in cooks, cleaners, bureaucracy, testers and whoever are general population.

Whether company ends in Forbes 500 or not is not influenced by general corporate employees. It is influenced by higher management - separated social class. It is very much selected who gets in.

And second, companies compete against each other. A company run by ethical management is less likely to reach Forbes 500. Not doing unethical things is disadvantage in current business. It could have been different if there was law enforcement for rich people and companies and if there was political willingness to regulate the companies. None of that exists.

Third, look at issues around Epstein. It is not that everyone was cool with his misogyny, sexism and abuse. The people who were not cool with that seen red flags long before underage kids entered the room. These people did not associated with Epstein. People who associated with him were rewarded by additional money and success - but they also were much more unethical then a guy who said "this feels bad" and walked away.