About a year and a half ago, I bought shares in an artificial-intelligence company. The stock has since risen sixfold, making me significant profits. But the company’s C.E.O. recently made political comments that I strongly disagree with. Despite these comments, the company’s stock continues to climb, and as the leader in its space, the company’s value will likely only increase.

Is it unethical to continue holding this stock? I invested before knowing about the C.E.O.’s propensity to get lippy in public this way. More broadly, what’s my ethical responsibility when investing, considering that nearly every public company has engaged in questionable behavior? — Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

Corporations exist to create or distribute products and services. Their leaders may reasonably try, in ways consistent with the law, to shape public policies that affect their enterprises. Although many of us would like to see more limits on the use of donations to secure influence — it would be nice if our democracy didn’t come with a V.I.P. lounge — we must acknowledge that a company and its competitors will pursue their interests by the rules currently in place. At the same time, corporate leaders are entitled to speak as citizens, even if the success of their businesses is what gives them a megaphone. Should we try to punish companies for the political speech of their leaders?

It’s complicated. On the one hand, C.E.O.s are the faces and voices of their organizations. If an executive’s stance offends a significant group of people, a stock dip feels like the natural consequence in a free market. On the left and the right, people vote with their wallets. Penalizing the company, via lost business, could pressure leaders to weigh their words more carefully. That’s not inherently unjust — actions have consequences.

cibet777

On the other hand,66jogo Jogos de Cassino Online no Brasil holding a company liable for one person’s speech blurs the line between individual and collective responsibility. Employees didn’t sign off on the C.E.O.’s remarks — why should they bear the brunt? And people who run corporations are citizens, too, with all the rights of citizens. Nor would we want a turnabout situation in which, say, a fried-chicken chain denied you service because you complained about how its birds were raised.

So you might think about what the C.E.O.’s stance actually influences. Is it just static on social media, or does it shape corporate decisions in a consequential way? Even if it does, there’s a big difference between a shareholder’s solitary sell-off and an organized divestment campaign. Unless you invest on a Warren Buffett-like scale, your entrance and exit will ripple the market about as much as a pebble plonked in the Pacific. By contrast, when you join a campaign, you’re asking not simply “Am I OK with this?” but “Can we bring about something better?” The focus is less on your solitary contribution and more on systemic impact. You’ll still want to be strategic. In a polarized world, boycotts can spur counterboycotts. (Look at Target’s Pride rollback, in which both sides lashed out.)

The bill also prohibits companies from sending notifications to people under 18 during school hours, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on weekdays from September through May, and during sleep hours, between midnight and 6 a.m. The default settings can be changed with the consent of a parent or guardian.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.f5555