Any fundamental correctness of their viewpoint is by virtue of them representing more people (EU citizens) than Apple's CEO represents (himself and, I guess, the Apple corporation, if you count that). On moral issues, the fundamentally "correct" viewpoint (if there is one) is, by definition, the one that more people say is the fundamentally "correct" viewpoint.

China represents twice as many people as the EU. This is not an enticing argument. Can you at least qualify this with democratic representation?

Thank you for your comment. In the spirit of interpreting it in the most charitable way possible, I assume that when you say "China", you mean the Chinese government. The answer is that Chinese government doesn't necessarily represent people living in China. As you say, it is not democratic. That leaves us with few indicators of representation.

It has control over the people living in China, true, but I do not think controlling a person, being able to put them in jail if they don't obey you, is the same thing as representing them.

Which free and democratic election did Xi win?

none, which is what the comment was complaining about.

Governments in other countries have come to a different view, and it's for Apple to determine how worth it is for them to conform to the view come to by the representatives of the EU citizens versus catering to markets with other regulatory regimes.

I'd argue that's not the case. CEO's are accountable to share holders, not its customers. And before you say its the same thing, there are a lot of pubically traded companies who get away with unlawful actions that direct effect its customer's for a long, long time without their bottom line being effected.

I don't believe the concept of a market has any fundamental place in morality, and my morality isn't limited to any particular "market".

Indeed, who apple is or isn't able to sell to, doesn't affect what people think is moral or immoral.

As for Apple's CEO representing Apple's customers: Are you sure? We didn't elect him. We just bought stuff made by an organization he currently runs.

So you think government can prove morality, but markets cannot? If you don't think government is a marketplace where the currency is political capital, then you have a naive view of how governments work. Also, I don't believe the EU is a direct democracy, so the representative morality is lossy. Have you never disagreed with a decision made by a politician you voted for?

I'm saying that customers decide whether or not to buy from Apple based on whether they resonate with them from a moral standpoint, at least as part of their decision to purchase their products. And I said Apple's CEO is accountable to their customers, not that they represent them. Yes, they're also accountable to shareholders, as your sibling comment points out. But if the company screws up enough to elicit a popular boycott, you can bet the reason shareholders will be exercising that accountability is due to the actions of the customer base.

Yes, a democratic government represents the people, and thus their moral stance. A market sells stuff. There's really no relationship between the two nouns. No reason to compare them. You might as well ask, "So the people can decide what's moral, but a jar of pickles can't?" Yes, that's correct. A jar of pickles is technically a market, so this analogy applies particularly well.

> I'm saying that customers decide whether or not to buy from Apple based on whether they resonate with them from a moral standpoint

I fully believe that you might do that yourself. There's no evidence everyone else does, or even that a majority do. Especially since most people aren't informed of working conditions involved in manufacturing Apple products (or indeed, many others' products).

It's just not believable that everyone thinks that buying a product = agreeing with every single moral stance made by the person currently running the company. And what if he changed his mind tomorrow? Would he offer a full refund to everybody who asked for one?

> And I said Apple's CEO is accountable to their customers, not that they represent them.

He's not accountable to them, only to the board*, but we're discussing representation - that is, speaking on behalf of a people, according to those people, not you or I or the speaker individually. If you mentioned accountability while we were on the topic of representation, and I returned us to the topic of representation, you're welcome :)

[*]: Your example illustrates this: a complex chain of accountability from CEO to Corporation and BoD to Corporation and Corporation to shareholders is required for any action to happen. Being accountable to customers means customers can decide to fire him _directly_.

> you mentioned accountability while we were on the topic of representation

Because they are interrelated concepts. Without accountability you can’t be trusted to faithfully represent someone. “Representation” without accountability is autocracy.

Also, chill with the condescension.

You are right, they may relate, and thus can be easy to confuse for each other when one is being discussed. So we have to be extra careful when bringing one up in a discussion about the other.

In this case, though, the CEO is not accountable to customers, and the CEO does not represent customers, so not too confusing. He is accountable to the BoD (nobody else can fire him) and represents the corporation. The interests of other parties, including customers, are secondary to, and when opposed lose to, the interests of the corporation.