>Why are we okay with profits being more important than ethics?
"Why?" aside, there are a few mechanisms behind your question-begging.
Capital itself is amoral. Money doesn't want anything, is not constrained or affected by ethics or morality, and can be used for kittens and torture in exactly the same ways and in the same form.
Companies are created by people, so they can have principles under which the company is guided (by people), and people in turn have ethics (good or bad). Either through weakness or avarice, despite any personal feelings, all public benefit takes a back seat to profits. This is the morality of most capitalist companies: whatever it takes.
It's a cop-out in favor of capital. "Welp, the company doesn't allow me to act according to my ethics because [something about the primacy of shareholders]," say those with power in the company. Any criticism of the morality of capitalist companies is ridiculed as reducing profits, often called "leaving money on the table" and seen nearly-universally in Western societies as a fireable offense for any businessperson hewing to the idea. It's a reason to reduce a person's control over any part of the capital flows that comprise day to day business and finance.
It's a morality of bigotry in favor of capital, and part of "growing up" is learning how to be a "team player" and suppressing one's own preferences in order to perpetuate this bigotry. Comes now Amazon into the picture...
"Why?" aside, there are a few mechanisms behind your question-begging.
Capital itself is amoral. Money doesn't want anything, is not constrained or affected by ethics or morality, and can be used for kittens and torture in exactly the same ways and in the same form.
Companies are created by people, so they can have principles under which the company is guided (by people), and people in turn have ethics (good or bad). Either through weakness or avarice, despite any personal feelings, all public benefit takes a back seat to profits. This is the morality of most capitalist companies: whatever it takes.
It's a cop-out in favor of capital. "Welp, the company doesn't allow me to act according to my ethics because [something about the primacy of shareholders]," say those with power in the company. Any criticism of the morality of capitalist companies is ridiculed as reducing profits, often called "leaving money on the table" and seen nearly-universally in Western societies as a fireable offense for any businessperson hewing to the idea. It's a reason to reduce a person's control over any part of the capital flows that comprise day to day business and finance.
It's a morality of bigotry in favor of capital, and part of "growing up" is learning how to be a "team player" and suppressing one's own preferences in order to perpetuate this bigotry. Comes now Amazon into the picture...