Imposing their views

[ProfessorDavey]

No, because self-interest tells them that the organisation would not survive if they paid themselves too much because overheads and taxes need to be paid for the organisation to survive and for them to have a job to go to.

In which case self interest becomes subservient to organisational interests, which is entirely my point.

They would also recognise that the organisation needs to retain people who are capable of making strategic decisions that will help the organisation survive so those key people might need to get a greater share of the rewards to entice them to stay with the organisation.

True - but still we are talking about organisational interests. And for many organisations the key people who their organisations interests focus on are not those who work for them but those they serve, whether that be customers, shareholders or people who access their services.

[Nearly Sane]

Yawn

I love the smell of imitation in the morning

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

In which case self interest becomes subservient to organisational interests, which is entirely my point.
True - but still we are talking about organisational interests. And for many organisations the key people who their organisations interests focus on are not those who work for them but those they serve, whether that be customers, shareholders or people who access their services.

Yes, but again it is individuals who perceive and decide what is in the interests of the organisation. That was the point that I think NS was making that individuals make up an organisation so the behaviour of an organisation depends on the behaviour of the individuals making the decisions for that organisation - and not on whether the organisation is religious or political or a lobby group etc.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, but again it is individuals who perceive and decide what is in the interests of the organisation. That was the point that I think NS was making that individuals make up an organisation so the behaviour of an organisation depends on the behaviour of the individuals making the decisions for that organisation - and not on whether the organisation is religious or political or a lobby group etc.

Pretty much. Institutions are merely people writ large. To reify them misses how to engage 

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, but again it is individuals who perceive and decide what is in the interests of the organisation. That was the point that I think NS was making that individuals make up an organisation so the behaviour of an organisation depends on the behaviour of the individuals making the decisions for that organisation

But as I have pointed out many (perhaps most) organisations buffer their ethos and culture from the vagaries of individual self interest of those that work for them. Indeed many organisation are structured to carefully protect ethos which may have been set a long time again and very difficult to change - so in effect the organisation has a 'life' outside of the individual people who may come and go as workers.

This is often achieved by having the protection of ethos and culture resting not with the people who work for the organisation (or certainly not employees) but by shareholder in the case of private organisations and governors/trustees in the case of public and third sector organisations. And while, of course those people are individuals their scope to act is fundamentally determined by acting in the best organisational interests not in the narrow self interests of those working for that organisation, although of course in many cases those may align. And once that ethos is set those working within the organisation are expected to act within organisational interests in accordance with organisational ethos and culture (even if that was set years or even decades before they started working at that organisation). So the organisational ethos and culture sits outside the individuals who may work there from time to time.

- and not on whether the organisation is religious or political or a lobby group etc.

I agree - I've never said this was something that only applies to one type of organisation although the original discussion was about religions. Different types of organisation may set their ethos etc in a slightly different manner but in most cases organisational ethos sits above the vagaries of people who work for that organisation from time to time and any change to ethos is based fundamentally on organisational interest, rather than self interest.

[jeremyp]

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Under the seven principles of public life, they shouldn't.

So people should suppress their own interests in the interests of the organisation. The first question is do you think they always or even mostly do? The second question is where do the interests of the organisation come from? Are they an emergent property or are they the result of people thinking up goals and principles?

[jeremyp]

Which fits with what I said - that his science was one element. I never said it was the main, let alone the only element.

However the recent work by Martinez argue that his scientific views were the primary reason for this death. Not saying I agree with him, but it is a view.

Your implication is that the science was an important part of why he was executed. This is not the case.

By the way, do you know what his scientific ideas were?

[jeremyp]

No it isn't - it is a well established convention that organisations have responsibilities that aren't merely cumulative individual responsibility. And this is why it is commonplace to take legal action against an organisation and this can be the case in situations where there is no suggestion of individual negligence. In fact you can take retrospective action against an organisations (with its current board and employees) even when the original harm occurred years ago and involving a completely different set of board members and employees.

This is because you cannot detach the corporate ethos and responsibilities from what individual employees do. When you work for a organisation your ability to take decisions that you might take in a private setting is curtailed by your responsibility to the organisation.

Yes, but if a company is negligent, it means somebody or perhaps several people in that organisation were negligent. BP was deemed legally responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster, but the whole thing was caused by individuals making mistakes. When a Catholic hospital refuses an abortion to a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, it is because there are individual human being in that hospital making poor decisions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, but if a company is negligent, it means somebody or perhaps several people in that organisation were negligent. BP was deemed legally responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster, but the whole thing was caused by individuals making mistakes. When a Catholic hospital refuses an abortion to a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, it is because there are individual human being in that hospital making poor decisions.

Not necessarily - there are situations where a company may be considered to be negligent (so called full negligence) where there is no indication that any single individual acted in a manner sufficient to be considered negligent. So in these cases it is clearly the company directly (rather than any individual) deemed to be negligent and responsible.

But even where an individual is negligent it may still be the organisation deemed to be negligent and responsible - so called vicarious negligence. The point being that in these cases the conduct of the individual considered to be negligent has been authorised by the organisation and thus the organisation, rather than the individual, is deemed negligent.

But the greater point is that if I am harmed then my route for recourse in most cases (other than criminal) is to go after the organisation, not the individual. Why - because my contract is with the company/organisation, not with any specific individual. So in contract/legal terms, in practical terms and in principle it is accepted that it is the organisation that did the bad thing that caused me harm (even if acting through its employees) and therefore the organisation should be the target for action and recompense.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But as I have pointed out many (perhaps most) organisations buffer their ethos and culture from the vagaries of individual self interest of those that work for them. Indeed many organisation are structured to carefully protect ethos which may have been set a long time again and very difficult to change - so in effect the organisation has a 'life' outside of the individual people who may come and go as workers.

Someone or a few people may have tried to set up structures and systems to buffer, but it doesn't really work. I am talking about whether it is possible to buffer against the strategic decision-makers in an organisation that set out the organisation's ethos or approach. The reason people wanted more diversity in management and on boards is because it led to better decisions by the board of directors to prolong the life of the organisation. I am not talking about monitoring employees who are not strategic decision-makers, although systems are often not good at buffering against negligent or wilful non-strategic decisions of employees either.

This is often achieved by having the protection of ethos and culture resting not with the people who work for the organisation (or certainly not employees) but by shareholder in the case of private organisations and governors/trustees in the case of public and third sector organisations. And while, of course those people are individuals their scope to act is fundamentally determined by acting in the best organisational interests not in the narrow self interests of those working for that organisation, although of course in many cases those may align.

The shareholders are therefore acting on the basis of self-interest as they want the organisation to continue in order to earn revenue or some other benefit from the organisation. Voluntary governors and trustees may not be motivated by revenue but perhaps they desire the status or want to feel that they are shaping society in some way - and they will be influenced by their own personal morality. If their personal morality is at odds with the morality of the other members of that organisation, the individual trustee or governor will seek to influence the other members to persuade them to more closely align with the personal morality and approach of that trustee or governor.

And once that ethos is set those working within the organisation are expected to act within organisational interests in accordance with organisational ethos and culture (even if that was set years or even decades before they started working at that organisation). So the organisational ethos and culture sits outside the individuals who may work there from time to time.

And the ethos changes as the strategic decision-makers in the organisation change.

I agree - I've never said this was something that only applies to one type of organisation although the original discussion was about religions. Different types of organisation may set their ethos etc in a slightly different manner but in most cases organisational ethos sits above the vagaries of people who work for that organisation from time to time and any change to ethos is based fundamentally on organisational interest, rather than self interest.

The issue you seemed to raise when it came to religion was that religions have been used to stifle independent thought and the point that was argued in response to that is that some individuals in an organisation or religion might seek to stifle independent thought for what they perceive or portray to be in the public interest but is ultimately for self-interest in that they want the organisation to continue and to exert power and influence on society as collectively people have more bargaining power and influence. Therefore, the problem is with those individuals who make the decisions in organisations rather than religion or the organisation. As soon as new individuals with a different approach have influence in the organisation or religion, the organisation's or religion's ethos changes.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not necessarily - there are situations where a company may be considered to be negligent (so called full negligence) where there is no indication that any single individual acted in a manner sufficient to be considered negligent. So in these cases it is clearly the company directly (rather than any individual) deemed to be negligent and responsible.

Not sure what you mean - can you please give an example of this.

But even where an individual is negligent it may still be the organisation deemed to be negligent and responsible - so called vicarious negligence. The point being that in these cases the conduct of the individual considered to be negligent has been authorised by the organisation and thus the organisation, rather than the individual, is deemed negligent.

Vicarious liability was developed in law because the organisation is deemed to have deeper pockets than the individual, so it meant a more just outcome for the victim if it could be established that there was sufficient close connection between the individual who acted and the organisation being held vicariously liable. It is based on the monetary position of organisations vs individuals. The legal concept is a different proposition from the moral responsibility of individuals in the organisation who made decisions or shaped ethos that led to the bad outcome. 

But the greater point is that if I am harmed then my route for recourse in most cases (other than criminal) is to go after the organisation, not the individual. Why - because my contract is with the company/organisation, not with any specific individual. So in contract/legal terms, in practical terms and in principle it is accepted that it is the organisation that did the bad thing that caused me harm (even if acting through its employees) and therefore the organisation should be the target for action and recompense.

A lot of these court cases do not involve breach of contract but are claims under tort.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not sure what you mean - can you please give an example of this.

Situations where there may be a systemic failure that cannot be attributed to any single individual. So in a court you would never reach the threshold for individual liability but may easily reach the threshold for corporate liability.

Vicarious liability was developed in law because the organisation is deemed to have deeper pockets than the individual, so it meant a more just outcome for the victim if it could be established that there was sufficient close connection between the individual who acted and the organisation being held vicariously liable.

In part, but the concept of vicarious liability goes much further than that - it is based on the longstanding principle in law that a company is an entity - actually often described as a non-human person and therefore that the critical relationship (often a duty of care) is between the individual harmed and the company, rather than any individual within that company. That makes a lot of sense but requires companies (and indeed other organisations) to have legally, and in principle, a separate identity from those who work for them.

Indeed this concept is centuries old:

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

It is based on the monetary position of organisations vs individuals.

No - it goes much further than that. it would make no difference if an employee was a billionaire and the company nearly broke, if the relationship is with the company (as the non-human person) and the other elements for vicarious liability are met then the company will be vicariously liable, not the individual.

A lot of these court cases do not involve breach of contract but are claims under tort.

Correct - although this makes no meaningful difference to the discussion.

[jeremyp]

Not necessarily - there are situations where a company may be considered to be negligent (so called full negligence) where there is no indication that any single individual acted in a manner sufficient to be considered negligent. So in these cases it is clearly the company directly (rather than any individual) deemed to be negligent and responsible.

You'll have to give me an example because I can't think of anything.

But even where an individual is negligent it may still be the organisation deemed to be negligent and responsible - so called vicarious negligence. The point being that in these cases the conduct of the individual considered to be negligent has been authorised by the organisation and thus the organisation, rather than the individual, is deemed negligent.

You're just talking about the legal position. Legally, a Catholic hospital in Ireland might be able to refuse a life saving abortion to a young woman, but morally, somebody took a reprehensible decision to allow her to die.

But the greater point is that if I am harmed then my route for recourse in most cases (other than criminal) is to go after the organisation, not the individual. Why - because my contract is with the company/organisation, not with any specific individual. So in contract/legal terms, in practical terms and in principle it is accepted that it is the organisation that did the bad thing that caused me harm (even if acting through its employees) and therefore the organisation should be the target for action and recompense.

There are good reasons why the law is structured in that way. If you had to sue the individual responsible, you would probably find they couldn't afford the damages. Plus the whole point of a corporation is to protect the individuals that created it and work for it  from some of these kinds of risks. Companies couldn't operate if the people in them were individually liable for every risk because it would be too risky.

And I'll empghasise again: you are just expounding the legal position. The fact that it is the company you sue doesn't mean somebody in that company didn't do whatever it was that caused you to sue.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Situations where there may be a systemic failure that cannot be attributed to any single individual. So in a court you would never reach the threshold for individual liability but may easily reach the threshold for corporate liability.

Can you give a specific example of a case?

In part, but the concept of vicarious liability goes much further than that - it is based on the longstanding principle in law that a company is an entity - actually often described as a non-human person and therefore that the critical relationship (often a duty of care) is between the individual harmed and the company, rather than any individual within that company. That makes a lot of sense but requires companies (and indeed other organisations) to have legally, and in principle, a separate identity from those who work for them.

We already established that companies are a separate legal entity. The issue being discussed is whether companies make decisions or whether it is the individuals in companies that make decisions. The company can be held liable legally liable for a decision but when it comes to moral responsibility it is the individuals in the company who are perceived to have moral responsibility as a neither a company nor a religion can make decisions, only the individuals can make decisions. 

Indeed this concept is centuries old:

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

You have linked to a legal concept, whereas what we were discussing was moral responsibility.

No - it goes much further than that. it would make no difference if an employee was a billionaire and the company nearly broke, if the relationship is with the company (as the non-human person) and the other elements for vicarious liability are met then the company will be vicariously liable, not the individual

No - the principle of vicarious liability was developed because generally organisations/ employers / companies have deeper pockets than individuals and it was deemed just and in society's interest to hold a party responsible (the company, organisation, employer) for harm even though they have not committed a wrong act but someone else has committed it to whom the company / organisation/ employer are legally held to be sufficiently closely connected.

Correct - although this makes no meaningful difference to the discussion.

You seem to be arguing about the legal liability of an organisation due to the existence of a contract. I was pointing out to you the long-eestablished principle that tort law allows people who are harmed to claim compensation from the person or entity that harmed them without requiring a contract to exist between them. However, an organisation's legal liability in contract or tort is irrelevant to the issue about Copernicus. The issue being discussed was who bears the moral responsibility for decisions - the individuals in organisations who make the decisions for that organisation, or the abstract entity that is an organisation?

[ProfessorDavey]

Can you give a specific example of a case?

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods

A rather good example as this was a single person company, yet the court found that that only the company was liable for negligence as the duty of care to the client rested with the company alone and not the individual, even though that individual had provided the advice that lead to the claim.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be arguing about the legal liability of an organisation due to the existence of a contract. I was pointing out to you the long-eestablished principle that tort law allows people who are harmed to claim compensation from the person or entity that harmed them without requiring a contract to exist between them.

Principle applies to tort as well as contract - indeed the example above is one of tort. The issue at had is which 'person' owes a duty of care, is it the non-human person of the company or the individual employee as a natural person in a legal sense. As a company must be treated be treated like any other independent person with its own rights and liabilities it is commonly the company, not any individual within that company, that owes a duty of care. In that case a negligence case can only be sought from the company not from the individual, as was demonstrated, writ large as the company had only a single employee, in Williams v Natural Life Health Foods.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods

A rather good example as this was a single person company, yet the court found that that only the company was liable for negligence as the duty of care to the client rested with the company alone and not the individual, even though that individual had provided the advice that lead to the claim.

This case is not an example of what you wrote, which is "Situations where there may be a systemic failure that cannot be attributed to any single individual. So in a court you would never reach the threshold for individual liability but may easily reach the threshold for corporate liability."

The failure in this case could be attributed to an individual - the sole director of a company. He was acting on behalf of the company (the principal). He had been heavily involved in the services the company provided. However, while the failure could be attributed to him and he is morally liable, the House of Lords held he is not legally and therefore economically liable for his failure to the tune of £85,000 based on the principle that "reliance upon [the assumption of responsibility] by the other party will be necessary to establish a cause of action.... It is not sufficient that there should have been a special relationship with the principal [the company]. There must have been an assumption of responsibility such as to create a special relationship with the director or employee himself. It's an objective test.

"An objective test means that the primary focus must be on things said or done by the defendant or on his behalf in dealings with the plaintiff. The enquiry must be whether the director, or anybody on his behalf, conveyed directly or indirectly to the prospective franchisees that the director assumed personal responsibility towards the prospective franchisees".

The concept of a company being a separate legal entity from those who own and manage it initially came about in order to partition the assets owned by a company from the assets owned by shareholders or members of the company e.g. the shareholders might own assets in a different unincorporated business but the assets of that unincorporated business would not be mixed with the assets of the company. This separate legal entity concept allowed the company to govern the use of assets it was deemed to own. It was later developed such that a trader who incorporates a company to which he transfers his business creates a legal person on whose behalf he may afterwards act as director. The Law Lords in this case said that "For present purposes, his position is the same as if he had sold his business to another individual and agreed to act on his behalf. Thus the issue in this case is not peculiar to companies. Whether the principal is a company or a natural person, someone acting on his behalf may incur personal liability in tort as well as imposing vicarious or attributed liability upon his principal."

The veil of incorporation is a legal not a moral concept. It protects individuals who want to go into business by limiting their personal liability as shareholders or directors or employees e.g. if there is a cock up by an individual in the company. This is one of the reasons why people in business incorporate rather than act as sole traders or partners.

You still have not explained what any of this has to do with the idea that religions as opposed to individual people can act to supress ideas being explored. The issue being discussed was not about legal liability. A religion is not a company and a religion does not make decisions and a religion is not a separate entity - individual people make decisions about whether they will supress other people's ideas that they interpret as being contrary to their understanding of their religious scripture or their political ideology. Individuals are not required to act this way - they take it upon themselves to do so. In the same way that Twitter mobs or Sussex police officers take it upon themselves to act against people whose opinions they disagree with. You have not responded to this point in my posts about whether individuals are morally responsible, despite me bringing it up several times.

[jeremyp]

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods

A rather good example as this was a single person company, yet the court found that that only the company was liable for negligence as the duty of care to the client rested with the company alone and not the individual, even though that individual had provided the advice that lead to the claim.

But in that case, there is no question about who the individual was that created the brochure with the false projections in it. The law suit failed because the law allows that individual some protection because the company was a limited company.

[ProfessorDavey]

But in that case, there is no question about who the individual was that created the brochure with the false projections in it.

That is why it is so interesting as it makes it clear that a one person company and that single person are not considered to be one and the same. They are considered to be distinct 'people'.

The law suit failed because the law allows that individual some protection because the company was a limited company.

No - it failed because the duty of care related to one person (the company) not the other person - the individual, regardless of the fact that that individual was the only person involved in the company. And it is nothing to do with limited companies as a range of other groups, that aren't ltd companies are treated in exactly the same manner.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That is why it is so interesting as it makes it clear that a one person company and that single person are not considered to be one and the same. They are considered to be distinct 'people'.

Only in the legal sense.

The legal position is irrelevant to your claim about religions persecuting people for putting forward certain theories. Religions are not distinct 'people'. Religions don't act.

But individual people may act or argue for ignorance or persecute people for their theories or thoughts and claim their actions are supported by their particular interpretation and understanding of the religion/ ethics/ philosophy/ morals that they subscribe to.
 

[ProfessorDavey]

The legal position is irrelevant to your claim about religions persecuting people for putting forward certain theories. Religions are not distinct 'people'. Religions don't act.

The legal position is entirely relevant as it is one, very clear, way in which an organisation is considered to be something distinct and different from the individuals within that organisations.

And religions, in the form of religious organisations can and do act. And indeed religious organisations are considered to be distinct persons in the same manner as companies might be - hence the action taken in a number of countries against the catholic church (as an example) as an organisation, for abuse. If they were not considered to be able to act then there would be no way in which individuals who consider that they have been harmed by the action of that organisation could take action against the organisation. If religious organisation cannot act then the only action could be against individuals within that organisation. But that isn't the case.

[jeremyp]

That is why it is so interesting as it makes it clear that a one person company and that single person are not considered to be one and the same. They are considered to be distinct 'people'.
No - it failed because the duty of care related to one person (the company) not the other person - the individual, regardless of the fact that that individual was the only person involved in the company. And it is nothing to do with limited companies as a range of other groups, that aren't ltd companies are treated in exactly the same manner.

Nobody here is talking about the law except you. This is not about the law: it's about the fact that companies are made of people and it is people that make the decisions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nobody here is talking about the law except you. This is not about the law: it's about the fact that companies are made of people and it is people that make the decisions.

But the manner of the decisions that individuals, or groups of individuals, make when acting on behalf of a company is often not the same as decisions individuals would make when acting in a purely personal capacity. And indeed most organisations require those making decisions on behalf of that company not to act in self interest, but in organisational interest.

Hence an organisation is distinct from its individual components (in this case individuals working in that organisation. Organisations are not simply the cumulative sum of the private individuals who work in that organisation - they are distinct.

That is why legally organisations are considered to be distinct from the people who work for that organisation.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The legal position is entirely relevant as it is one, very clear, way in which an organisation is considered to be something distinct and different from the individuals within that organisations.

No it's entirely irrelevant to your claim about religions, which are not the same as companies.

And religions, in the form of religious organisations can and do act.

Ah I see you've realised you were wrong and changed your wording to talk about religious organisations. Organisations are made up of individual people who make decisions on behalf of the organisation based on their interpretation of circumstances and moral codes.

And indeed religious organisations are considered to be distinct persons in the same manner as companies might be - hence the action taken in a number of countries against the catholic church (as an example) as an organisation, for abuse.

Yes taking legal action for financial compensation against a particular organisation (which is a legal entity and can therefore own assets) for the decisions made by people on behalf of that organisation is normal and how society works.

If you stick to talking about organisations your claims sound less nonsensical than when you talk about religions, since religions are not a legal entity that can act but instead are a set of beliefs related to the supernatural. Religious organisations can act though. Individuals within those organisations can interpret beliefs in different ways to arrive at moral codes, which they may act on and/or influence and persuade others to act.

[jeremyp]

But the manner of the decisions that individuals, or groups of individuals, make when acting on behalf of a company is often not the same as decisions individuals would make when acting in a purely personal capacity. And indeed most organisations require those making decisions on behalf of that company not to act in self interest, but in organisational interest.

Hence an organisation is distinct from its individual components (in this case individuals working in that organisation. Organisations are not simply the cumulative sum of the private individuals who work in that organisation - they are distinct.

That is why legally organisations are considered to be distinct from the people who work for that organisation.

We don't care about the law. When a person makes a decision in a company, it is that person. Yes there may be pressures that make them choose a different course but if they make a poor moral decision because it's a corporation, it's on them (morally, if not legally). If an administrator in a catholic hospital refuses to allow an abortion for a woman who will die without it are you going to absolve them of responsibility because it's catholic doctrine? I'm not.