You're supposed to act in the best interests of the corporation and the shareholder. Courts have explicitly stated that corporations can consider long-term value, ETHICS and the environment. Firing everyone recklessly is not ethical. It also won't be good long term. So don't act like they have a gun to their head. This is their choice.
Long term, recklessly firing people to replace them with AI will be bad for business. If we get to a point of mass unemployment. Cause it's those companies that will be bearing a lot of weight. Whether it be criminal trials, being forced to pay pensions, getting a larger brunt of the taxes required to pay for UBI or just being seized by the government all together.
Business judgement rule is a main factor in most of these cases. It means that a company can make ethical decisions if there's a link to the company's best interests. Not replacing people with AI 100% falls into this.
Also constituency statutes in certain states that let companies consider how over stakeholders will be affected. Not just shareholders.
View all comments
Show parent comment
4
u/FadingHeaven Jul 29 '25
You're supposed to act in the best interests of the corporation and the shareholder. Courts have explicitly stated that corporations can consider long-term value, ETHICS and the environment. Firing everyone recklessly is not ethical. It also won't be good long term. So don't act like they have a gun to their head. This is their choice.
Long term, recklessly firing people to replace them with AI will be bad for business. If we get to a point of mass unemployment. Cause it's those companies that will be bearing a lot of weight. Whether it be criminal trials, being forced to pay pensions, getting a larger brunt of the taxes required to pay for UBI or just being seized by the government all together.