Conceiving an Organization as a “Person”

Corporate personhood refers to the legal notion in which a corporation separates itself from all the associated human characters such as employees, owners or managers who have some responsibilities and legal rights which is enjoyed by the natural persons. In most countries across the world, corporations possess the powers to be in stable contracts with the other parties and to be sued or similarly sue in courts as the unincorporated or natural association of persons. Similarly, the phrase cooperates personhood can also be defined as the ongoing legal debate about the extent to which rights that are traditionally associated with the physical persons should be maximally afforded within the corporation. This paper focuses on discussing the sense of conceiving an organization such as a corporation as a “person.”

Every organization depends on several aspects for its stability both in the production and consumption process. The activities which they do are usually geared towards a common goal and define their worth in the liberation process. However, if the company is conceived as a ‘person’ the natural humans present in its system enjoy adequate constitutional protection. The interpretation of “person” gives the corporation adequate legal protection. They are subjected towards working a unit mainly if their constitutional rights are adequately addressed and heeded for.  Similarly, conceiving a corporation as a person helps most organizations to claim legal protection which might not be available to persons who are acting as a group. Significantly, the process also allows corporations to exercise the rights of their shareholders who are entitled to legal protection against any form of arbitrary state action.

Additionally, conceiving of an organization such as a corporation as a “person” allows them to enter into contracts as well as on property. Similarly, the corporations are also able to sue or be sued based under both the criminal and civil laws. Interestingly, through this attempt most corporations’ bars individual shareholders from becoming responsible for the debts and damages with the corporation especially those which are beyond its investment system. Notably, own employees, director, and managers are also liable for their law-breaking or malfeasance while representing the corporation, though they are not liable for the actions of the corporation (Argyris, 2017). In the United States, several controversial have been frequently discussed concerning corporate personhood due to its extension of limited subset which is present in same constitutional rights.

Moreover, through the legal entity approach, most corporations have managed always to be able to perform different commercial activities which are similar to the ones being done by a person working or acting as a sole proprietor, for example, in entering into property ownership or contracts — as a result, conceiving organization into “person” has enabled most of them to have a “legal personality” in conducting businesses while protecting all individual shareholders from any personal liability (Ripken, 2016) — for instance, protecting all the personal assets which the corporation failed to invest on.

Great Thinkers

Aristotle

Aristotle is one of the great thinkers whose ideas about human life fascinate all aspects of a social being. In most of his arguments, his focus was centralized in the well-being of the human’s social life.  He gives the social race opportunity to enjoy their social life based on the provisions which are available within their community setup. The inception of his argument reveals that human requires eudemonia for them to have a balanced life, which consequently requires them to live virtuously. Aristotle also argues that al organizations must aim at providing the good for its members at all times primarily through ensuring that they have a balanced life throughout the lifespan. However, on the members of the state, Aristotle distinguishes their living from the typical race by asserting that they have a sort of dependency relationship between them and the country which cannot be detached any easily. As a result, a clear social class distinction is portrayed that can be used by an organization to identify the best method of providing support.

Additionally, in supporting this argument, Aristotle maintains that by nature humans are a political animal, they are part of the organization’s system where members are directed through the use of exemplary elements such as leadership (Bryndin & Bryndina, 2017). Similarly, Aristotle allows every human race to disambiguate all the factors which can jeopardize their sexual life. According to Aristotle, the central focus for natural procreation lies on how close or far two parties are connected, man and women (Lindsay, 2018). But based on the leadership position he gives every gender, social and political classes unique roles which define their status. For instance, in the slave set, the master has the commands of all the activities which are happening with the system. This gives him or her opportunity to maintain a close link with his or her servants. However, in the sexist and nonegalitarian perspective he keeps that natural rulers must maintain their position regardless of the economic challenges which they are facing in their social class. For example, he asserts that in every marriage, males are the rulers and command every aspect of life which is within the setting.

Conclusion

In conclusion, corporate personhood provides a legal notion most corporations can be separated from based on the individual characters such as managers well as legal rights which a natural person can enjoy.  Similarly, it provides other aspects of life which help in creating a stable production and consumption system for defining the liberation process. Interestingly, Aristotle maintains that the way an individual depends on the state is the same as how of aspects depends on the whole for their cohesion.  Overall, Aristotle gives several arguments which are useful in creating a stable corporate society.

References

Argyris, C. (2017). Integrating the Individual and the Organization. Routledge.

Bryndin, E. G., & Bryndina, I. E. (2017). Healthy Wellbeing of the Person and Society. Journal “The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences SBS, 19, 130-139.

Lindsay, H. F. (2018). Balancing Community Needs Against Individual Desires. Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, 10(2), 6.

Ripken, S. K. (2016). Corporations are people too: a multi-dimensional approach to the corporate personhood puzzle. Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L., 15, 97.