Summary: Theists maintain the rights of the individual are derived from the rights (and responsibilities) of the soul. They further maintain that human beings are God's greatest creation.
Corporations are human inventions, the fundamental principles of which are based on the maximizing of profits without ethical concerns (greed) and the limitation of liability (the shirking of responsibility for one's actions).
The Webster's definition of blasphemy: 1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity;
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable
Thus I present that bestowing human rights on to corporations is Blasphemy.
I think that context and the life-experience of an author is always important, but of particular importance when discussing spiritual and/or theistic matters. So before I begin I present some context about myself. I was born in the Midwest of the United States, into a Methodist farming family who went to church (almost) every week, although we were not so dogmatic as to eschew science. My spiritual path has led me to study many of this planet's "religions" and/or philosophies, including the viewpoint many label as "atheism," (although this is a biased term that is rife with problems) and the method of thought and practice known as "science."
For this essay, I present my viewpoint in the context of Western Monotheism, but I believe that this essay presents thoughts that can be of use to those who are secular in their world view. And while I have studied the major branches of Western religion, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, the latter is the only of which that I have actively practiced and/or been immersed in. Thus because of these circumstances, it is to the Christians who I mostly speak to in this essay. To non-Christian readers, I apologize in advance to the likely biases in my writing, either conscious or unconscious, and present that it is likely from my incarnation into a family that practiced Christianity. Ok, end of disclaimers.
A fundamental concept of Western monotheistic religions is that "God" created the Universe and everything included thereof. Of these creations, it is widely held that the greatest of these creations is (hu)Man.
Manifested in the "image" of God, each individual human is primarily and more importantly a "soul," an eternal being greater than the material body. This soul has some of the abilities of the deity, the power to create and destroy, the power to reason, dominion over other beings, and most notably (and important to this essay) the power, right and responsibility to choose between "good" an "evil," thus determining the eternal "fate" of said soul.
I present that the absolute and non-negotiable requirement of all souls to choose between good and evil, with said choice determining the ultimate fate of each and every individual, is the most core concept and in fact the "purpose" of Western monotheistic religion.
It is not much of a leap from this point to postulate that this is the primary and/or entire reason for God to create the Universe in the first place.
(I would also present that the point of most other religions or philosophies on this planet, whether they be theist or secular, are concerning the navigation through choices between "good" and "evil," whether or not such nomenclature is used, but exploring this very large point is not the purpose of this particular essay.)
Overlaid on the essential charge to choose between good and evil, is the physical reality of survival—the obvious requirement of all beings to procure sustenance and shelter against the elements of nature. It's worth noting that much of the "Old Testament" (as named by the Christians) are requirements and advice on how to manage this requirement of survival with the requirement to follow divine law, covering things like what to eat and how to make war.
Concurrent to the requirements of survival, are the limits of the physical soul—the body. Bodies enter the world weak, unable to care for themselves. Over time they gain strength, but rarely (or never) so strong as to as to live without assistance, until they ultimately grow frail again, and certainly, and non-negotionably, die. Even at the height of any body's strength, it is limited in power. Bodies get tired and must sleep. Bodies get sick or injured and must heal. Bodies can only be in one place at one time in this vast universe.
Such is reality. We are charged by God to choose between "good" and "evil," between ethical an non-ethical, as weak beings with a limited time in the material world. We are charged with this task in the face of the most immense of opposing forces, the requirement of survival.
The modern human invention called the Corporation has two core principles:
1. The maximizing of profits
2. The limitation of liability
These two principles create the totality of the foundation of modern corporations. Thus I present that corporations are, at their core and most primary essence of existence, are in contradiction to the very reason of creation, and as such, an immoral human invention.
Let's discuss the two core principles of a corporation
The Maximizing of Profits
Profit maximization is partially an outgrowth of the requirement of survival that reality imposes on us. While it is not as obvious to many in the present world who enjoy abundant food and shelter, it is painfully obvious to those today who do not. But regardless of your current point of view, the current (relative) abundance of food is only a very recent phenomenon. For millennia on this planet, the absolute norm for nearly all people was that starvation was perhaps only a day or a season away. A poor hunt, a crop failure, or any number of oft-occurring ill fortunes meant that people would DIE.
It is only a very recent occurrence (and only for a portion of the earth's residents today) that food is in such abundance that we can waste food. I note that my father, who is still farming at age 89, stops to clean up all spilled grain in the field, even if that grain may only have a cash value of a few cents. I used to think this was nuts, but he is a man who used to harvest grain by hand, and who lived through the 1930s when there were not only many more people starving, but droughts of epic proportion. In those days, every single grain was used.
My father also has brought all possible tillable land on our farm under production, extending the edges of fields to their farthest reasonable extent, cutting down groves of trees to create crop fields, modifying land via bulldozer or drainage tiles to create cropland on otherwise inadequate land.
Now such action could be said to be profit maximization, leading to an apologist's argument that "profit maximization" is just the modern term for not being wasteful and/or staving off possible starvation.
Such examples also clearly show that profit maximization is also not limited to the corporation. It can easily and rightfully argued that many (or most) individuals or business entities that are not corporations also endeavor to maximize profits.
What then, is exactly the problem with a corporation's core principle to maximize profits?
The answer leads us back to the discussion previously outlined in this essay: The requirement of "souls" to choose between good and evil in the face of the requirement of survival in the material world.
Individuals, whether they be theists or rationalists, must balance the need of survival with the need to be ethical. Individuals have personal ethics, again whether theistically or rationally devised, that must be weighed against all decisions of material survival. Those individuals who act out of material gain with no ethical "brakes" are rightfully said to be "greedy." And to the adherent of any flavor of western monotheism, greed is a sin.
But in a corporation, the management of the corporation is BOUND to actions that maximize profit, and any deviation from the maximization of profit can lead to legal action taken against said management. Any "moral" or "ethical" considerations are entirely and wholly defined by secular law. Any individual in the management of the corporation faces serious repercussions by following any other ethical or moral standard.
Thus the balance between survival and ethics is obliterated, with (what has become so-called) survival being the only standard for the corporation to operate.
Adding insult to injury, it is the rampant practice of modern corporations and their proponents, to attempt and succeed at eliminating the last vestiges of moral consideration that a corporation must adhere to: Laws and regulations.
To the "faithful," it is the core point of their life that they must balance profits with ethics. To all humans, regardless of philosophical or spiritual orientation, they must balance profit maximization with personal ethics. But for the corporation, this balance does not exist. In fact, to many champions of the corporation, the mere discussion of "social conscious" is detestable. No less than conservative economic titan Milton Friedman holds that the corporation should NEVER act out of social conscious, and that pursuit of profit is the corporation's sole purpose.
Now any and each individual can choose to not work for a corporation. One can also choose to not patronize any corporation, although to do so would come with such difficulty that it could be said to be impractical, if not impossible. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have "free enterprise" on this planet, all business and personal endeavors must compete against the corporation. Certainly even Mr. Friedman would acknowledge that market forces will compel even the non-corporation into corporation-like decisions.
Thus even the ethical business owner must operate under the (non)ethical corporate system, or they won't be a business owner much longer. As we see in the modern economy, this is not mere speculation, but a real phenomenon as small businesses fall en masse to large corporate chains.
The Limitation of Liability
The second core principle of the corporation is the limitation of liability. This is easily as primary to the corporation as the pursuit of profits, if not more.
Limited liability means that the actions of the corporation, or more correctly, the shareholders of the corporation, are shielded from personal liability for the actions of the corporation. And while many would note that the employees of the corporation are also shielded, this is patently false.
As already noted, the management of the corporation can be held liable if they do not take actions that maximize profits for the shareholders. Management and employees can also be held liable for criminal actions of the corporation. As a practical matter, employees are also liable to lose their jobs at any time they do not "tow the company line."
Shareholders and their apologists will say that the shareholder is also liable, in that they may lose their investment, which is of course true. The problem is that this is the full extent of the shareholders' liability.
While an extensive discussion of the particular interworkings of capital and labor in regards to a corporation could be a very worthwhile endeavor, such is not the purpose of this essay. That said, it must be noted that one of the clear inequities of the limited liability corporation is that the labor is indeed exposed to liability, while the capital, the full capital of the shareholder-owner, is shielded from liability. Why on earth should the "laborer" incur liability that includes their own personal capital, but the "capitalist" need only be concerned with the capital they choose to put towards any particular endeavor? This is unfair, immoral, and responsible for much of the trouble on this planet today.
This fact sets the table for immoral behavior by the corporation. What's worse, it legitimizes such behavior in the marketplace, and through competition pulls many other firms, corporation or not, into similar questionable actions.
"Limited Liability" is an utter affront to the concept of responsibility for one's actions, regardless of the personal belief system any particular individual may have. But in regards to the moral systems of western theistic thought, it is an affront to no less than God's law, and the choice of between good and evil we each are required to do to determine the fate of our eternal soul. Actions do indeed have consequences in the material world, and to those of faith, in the eternal spiritual world.
Conclusion
And so I present that at in both its most fundamental principles--the maximization of profits with no consideration of social responsibility, and the limitation of liability thus removing consequences of an individual's actions--the corporation is in direct opposition to Western theistic morality.
Theists believe that the laws of the humans are derived from the laws of God. Moreover, the laws of a nation MUST be based on the laws of God in order to be a moral nation. To do otherwise risks the wrath of God.
Conservatives claim "personal responsibility" as one of the tenets of their political view.
The laws that establish the limited liability corporation are in opposition to both of these ideas.
And now we have the "Citizens United" ruling by the Supreme Court which extends the rights of individuals, which extend from the rights of Souls, to the corporation, a human invention designed for greed and to remove responsibility of actions. For these reasons, I present that this is Blasphemy.