Capitalist systems sieve out people whose goals are at odds with the accumulation of capital. By the time you get to a boardroom, everyone has been tested hundreds of times for their loyalty to profit. All deviations are unstable: over a long enough period of time they will be replaced or outcompeted.
Not sure why this comment is being downvoted. The people who rise through the ranks are exactly the kind unburdened by ethical or moral issues that get in the way of the business generating revenue. In fact, such folks use their short term gains from breaking such implicit expectations to jettison themselves ahead of their peers. As such, this kind of behavior is incentivized.
Those with such issues either quit or work in non controversial parts of the org.
Agreed. And it works between companies as well as between people within companies. The system is set up so that only those who push the boundaries and exploit externalities can compete.
I think there is a crowd that kneejerk downvotes ideas they interpret as anti-capitalist, without reading the argument.
An example: I am not a Marxist. But I think the Marxist question of "surplus value" as an ethical question is relevant and interesting. I pointed it out on HN a few times. Again, without being a Marxist, just intellectually curious. Nobody ever asks me if I am really a Marxist. I get downvoted pretty severely when I point it out. I get an impression that they smell a whiff of the opposing sports team and turn negative.
By an arbitrary definition of sociopath invented by a researcher that has little to do with the commonly-accepted definition of sociopath, who used his broadened definition to build his career on the pillar of running around making surprising declarations about "sociopaths."
I'm really, really tired of hearing about the "sociopath CEO" numbers. They're not real.
