Okay, so Cook is implying here that Apple's maneuvers are not only restricted by rule of law, but by some underlying ethical principles. This model is bolstered by similar pronouncements he's made on privacy.
Apple is a company that benefits enormously from the intellectual and physical infrastructure of the United States. From this, many onlookers derive the ethical principle that Apple should pay its "fair share of tax".
So Cook's Apple must also have a meta-ethics that somehow judges this is not an important ethical principle.
Part of me wonders if this meta-ethics involves a cost-benefit analysis. And wonders when the rubber hits the road whether Apple's ethical principles actually go beyond the default corporate ethics of maximizing shareholder value within the rule of law.
On the other hand, anyone saying bad things about PACs, and good things about privacy, is fine and dandy with me.
On what basis do you decide that Apple doesn't pay it's 'fair share'? On the face of it they seem to pay a fair bit. They are the largest single tax payer in the world, with a global effective tax rate of 24.6%.
I'm sure there are some ways they minimise their tax bills, but it's not as though they don't pay tax or even pay very little tax overall.
Apple is a company that benefits enormously from the intellectual and physical infrastructure of the United States. From this, many onlookers derive the ethical principle that Apple should pay its "fair share of tax".
So Cook's Apple must also have a meta-ethics that somehow judges this is not an important ethical principle.
Part of me wonders if this meta-ethics involves a cost-benefit analysis. And wonders when the rubber hits the road whether Apple's ethical principles actually go beyond the default corporate ethics of maximizing shareholder value within the rule of law.
On the other hand, anyone saying bad things about PACs, and good things about privacy, is fine and dandy with me.
Which must mean this ad is made for me.
reply