I've had the theory for some time now that the larger a corporation grows, the more likely it will by degrees become unethical, amoral, and damaging--unless it is guided by someone with a genuine working conscience. To shepherd a career in a big corporation the employee or executive has to follow the corporation's internal cues. They're in a constant state of self-comparison to corporate culture. They don't *know*, they don't see, what they are becoming, as they pare back empathy for outsiders.
@JohnShirley2023 At the risk of sounding glib, that's kind of the entire point of a corporation: to insulate its principals from liability, including the consequences of their own actions.
@pieist And while it's important to note that some people doubtless make a semi-conscious decision based on a "I'll just go along because this is the way of the world" rationale, perhaps spurred by a supervisor's advice, the majority of people, in my model, don't even know they're making this moral adaptation. They're not self aware enough to know.
@pieist But the question is, how does the corporation maintain "air tight integrity" with respect to its irresponsibility, within its corporate corpus? I think there's a mechanism--just kind of instinctive, in a way, a sort of behavioral lean to the lowest common denominator, lubricated by the administration, and the stockholders.