Is it Ethical to Own Shares in an Unethical Business?

Not always, but I think it can be. As a small, independent investor, your ownership of the business generally will have very little impact on that businesses' future decision making, or stock price, or worth, or reputation. So, the consequence of your ownership rests largely with the consequences of how you spend your profits.

As a larger investor, you can influence the actions of the business in certain circumstances, allowing yourself to improve the ethics of the business.

Of course, this line of thinking relies on the basis of the business' ethics being a seldom prioritized value, and there can be cases where even small ownership is a considerable boon for a company. However, the case of share ownership ethics is never as straight-forward as many think it to be; owning shares in a tobacco company, for instance, can be the best way to fight the ill-effects of smoking.

Anonymity

Should bloggers be anonymous? Can they be trusted to disclose conflicts of interest when needed?

Grog (http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/), a fine and honest blogger, was recently identified against his wishes. As he notes, he works for the Government in a portfolio whose minister, Peter Garrett, he defended from attack over problems with an insulation program.

This issue has been written about comprehensively, but I want to offer my take; anonymity is a right, and disclosure of interest is a duty. That is, I have no problem with someone keeping their identity hidden. And, irrespective of anonymity, disclosure of conflict of interests must always be made, since the conflict is sometimes evident only to the author.

I like my anonymity because it affords the discretion in how I conduct my personal and public affairs; this is very much passion for me that I am proud of, but I don't want this to colour the relationships I have with others. For instance, my family would never understand that I intend to give the majority of my (very small) fortune away to charity. At some point, I'll need to discuss this with them, but I intend to do this at my convenience, not because I'm actively pursuing such an end.

More importantly, I don't want this to infringe on my ability to attain a job in Economics, or to work with people in that profession. People respect Warren Buffet and Bill gates no less because they intend to give away their money, but this is only because their business acumen and will is known. For a newcomer, this isn't possible. One day, this won't be the case, but that day is not today.

The Globalisation of Empathy

Empathy is the capacity to share in another's happiness or sadness, and is therefore dependant on proximity to the other. This is one reason why some people feel intuitively that charity should start at home; one has more solidarity with one's family than with one's countrymen and more again than with the people of distant nations. And yet, most people would agree that the person more deserving of charity is the more needy, irrespective of where they live or who they are. That is, most feel that a starving stranger should be fed before a near-content friend.

The benefits of (peaceful) globalisation are well documented (as are the undesirable consequences), and includes the wider dispersion of empathy. Once, literature made it possible for a nation state to form and integrate. As this video explains, the internet may continue this trend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g (Jeremy Rifkin and RSAOrg).

Both helpful and harmful resources and information are peddled subjectively through the internet, but certain ideas are objective in that they are true independent of conjecture; democracy, human rights, equality, and so forth. The internet is the wind through which these truths might find fertile minds, and germinate.

Also on that on wind is empathy. Shared video especially, since humans are intrinsically visual, abets the forming of narratives that cut through to the conscience.

In the short term, though, I fear that the benefits of the internet will be out of reach to the developing world, where they are most needed. I feel that economic development and technological endowment of the developing world should be of equal priority. The latter is certainly easier and cheaper to implement, and certainly would help sustain all other progress made.

My Solution

My solution, in very vague, abstract terms, is to dedicate a substantial part (at least half) of my free time and disposable income (which I define as income not required to sustain a moderate lifestyle), to doing whatever I can to provide opportunities for the less fortunate, and to inform others.

In more concrete terms, that means:

1/ Posting to this blog once weekly.
2/ Reading an interesting philanthropy book each month.
3/ Acquiring an ongoing income stream that provides funds for reputable charities.
4/ Political activism (always non-violent).

My Circumstances

I'm a Caucasian male, born and living in Australia, in my mid-twenties. I have little free time. I come from a middle class background, and am steadily employed. I have a degree in mathematics and computer science. I have a moderate amount of disposable income, but certainly no acquired fortune. I have no political or religious affiliations. I'm healthy. I would describe myself as bright, but I am no genius. I am enthusiastic, and hard working.

There was no 'eureka!' moment, just a gradual realisation of how truly fortunate I am to have won the ovarian lottery.

I'm also realistic about what I can achieve. I expect to hold this conviction (or rather, for this conviction to have hold of me) for the remainder of my life.

The Problem

My name is Chris, and I can't eat caviar while others starve.

We all know that in this world, that success, happiness and survival depend as much on factors beyond our control as factors within in our control. Warren Buffet asks us to imagine that, 24 hours before we are born, that a genie asks to select a ball at random, and that this ball will determine into whether we will be born white or black, above intelligence or below, healthy or not, male or female, and so on. He continues:

If you could put your ball back, and they took out, at random, a hundred other balls, and you had to pick one of those, would you put your ball back in? Now, of those hundred balls … roughly five of them will be American. … Half of them are going to be below-average intelligence, half will be above. Do you want to put your ball back? Most of you, I think, will not. … What you’re saying is, “I’m in the luckiest 1% of the world right now."


This is an extension of Rawls' veil of ignorance idea.

So, the problem becomes, How do you eliminate the extreme fortune and misfortune that comes with being born a certain way?

Given the enormous magnitude of this problem, one needs to have realistic goals in mind. No one man or woman can fix this problem by themselves. However, meaningful progress can be made by individuals and collectives, and it would be unethical not to try.