There´s a law philosopher named Carlos Santiago Nino whose statement might me interesting in our discussion: he says (as far as I´ve read) that collective persons, like companies and countries, are juridical fictions, they´re metaphors of the people organized "inside" them.

His argument to this claim is that ethics and responsability exist only for rational beings (like Kant said), and that these are the so-called "moral persons". A company is not responsible itself for its "acts", but sure are the employees and executive managers whose practices harm society, whose "rationality" makes them responsible for their acts.

The law gave all companies some "rights". It has legal protection for its property and even can win damages for agressions to its fame and honour. But it´s just legal fiction: the laws are indirectly defending the owners, executives, workers, etc.

This may solve the definition for "person" for some ethical issues (may help to measure responsabilities hidden under a company name), but not all of them.

What do you mean by "unified subject"?

Thank you this forum I hope everybody have an enjoyable day.
gucci shoes,
jordan shoes,
gucci handbags,
gucci shoes for men，
Happy New Year.
cheap jordan shoes,
air jordans.

There´s a law philosopher named Carlos Santiago Nino whose statement might me interesting in our discussion: he says (as far as I´ve read) that collective persons, like companies and countries, are juridical fictions, they´re metaphors of the people organized "inside" them.
Good response, salgueiro, since you've touched an artery but not necessarily the heart of this discussion. I am not particularly sure whether the question itself is directly related individual corporate governance (in all honesty, I have no idea what the hell jack is on about) but the latter part of your post would be an interesting relief to a diseased topic.

His argument to this claim is that ethics and responsability exist only for rational beings (like Kant said), and that these are the so-called "moral persons". A company is not responsible itself for its "acts", but sure are the employees and executive managers whose practices harm society, whose "rationality" makes them responsible for their acts.
What exactly are you saying here and how is this related to what you previously said? Unfortunately, I am going to have to ignore the rest of your statement, but I look forward to the elucidation of your argument and the potential development of a better topic.

Basically:
Law gives right and protections to a company. This is because law consider an organisation to be a person needing legal right. If law is fair... then protectionism and rights should have be given to a company based upon its employee and employer instead.