To be charitable, other people can have different views on ethics.
For example, if harming a CEO who helped raise claim denial rates from less than 10% to 30% results in revised policies and less overall suffering, that could be morally justifable to some.
And that’s because it’s not his job to do so. Not every problem needs to be solvable by any given individual.
If he really was that passionate about the problem, he should’ve run for office to get into a position to solve the problem, or at least joined forces with some group that pushes for causes he believes in. Or started a business to compete with those businesses he disagrees with. Those would all be proactive steps he could take. Killing a CEO doesn’t solve anything, another will take his place, and surely he knew that.
Running for office wouldn’t have stopped the CEO from continuing to murder thousands, since the CEO and his shareholders literally spend billions making sure people who would stop them don’t get elected.
Killing a CEO doesn’t solve anything, another will take his place, and surely he knew that.
Yeah, this is why adventurism doesn’t really work. The guy’s actions were ineffective at systemic change, however just they may have been.
You’re right, and neither does this extrajudicial killing. Nothing changed in insurance policie, and nothing will likely change. But running for office has a much better chance of helping people in the future than murdering a CEO.
And yeah, insurance companies spend billions lobbying government, and that’s why running for office yourself is valuable, you can refuse to accept these donations. You need to find your own powerful group to get you elected (maybe labor unions?), because that’s how the game is played, but there are options if you’re laser focused on one type of policy.
however just
Justice is the lawful administration of law, and extrajudicial killing is, by definition, unjust. Depending on your moral code, I also argue it’s immoral, because it’s only moral to kill to protect innocent lives, and retribution isn’t protection.
If killing this person was likely to actually change company policy, I could see it as moral, but there’s absolutely no way a reasonable person would think that. This was a crime of passion, not of justice.
Sure, and the solution to that isn’t murder, but holding them accountable to things like contract violations or unreasonably complicated contracts. That’s an issue for the DOJ/AG, not vigilantes.
And yeah, insurance companies spend billions lobbying government, and that’s why running for office yourself is valuable, you can refuse to accept these donations. You need to find your own powerful group to get you elected (maybe labor unions?), because that’s how the game is played, but there are options if you’re laser focused on one type of policy.
I agree with the sentiment, but all the labor unions in the country couldn’t hold a candle to the potential damage a billionaire could do to an independent campaign, let alone a cabal of them. They don’t play fairly in politics, and they’re not above using advertising and media to direct a narrative that benefits their interests.
That’s not to say I’m endorsing violence. After seeing Bezos and Musk manipulate news media and social media, respectively, I just don’t have much hope in the system anymore.
I guess people are saying that they believe there is such a thing as an ethical murder in the streets. Of course in any form of ethics vacuum chamber this can’t stand. But in the real world where children are bombed for the sake of some asshole’s religion, where the president boasts he could get away with murder in the street and courts confirm this, in a world where sick people are left to suffer to boost a share price, then, THEN an act like this becomes a reasonable response to an unreasonable world.
Maybe someone better educated can tell me what ethics scholars have to say about how an ethical actor should behave in a system where ethics have utterly broken down. Right now, the crowd is saying “like that guy.”
I’m ill-disposed to wag my finger at them, and think the only ethical course is to address the corrupt environment in which this act occurred, because that environment undermines any one-dimensional ethical evaluation of this murder in the street, and that makes me deeply uncomfortable.
The comment I replied to wasn’t cheering on a murderer.
The comment I replied to was trying to convey that an impoverished person may feel like the reward money for turning in a murderer outweighs any moralizing over the murder itself. That the dollar figure could be literally life changing and they may feel they have no option but to turn them in.
And people downvoted that. Hence my shaken faith in people’s ability to empathize.
Only the downvotes?
What about the cheering on of murder in the street?
To be charitable, other people can have different views on ethics.
For example, if harming a CEO who helped raise claim denial rates from less than 10% to 30% results in revised policies and less overall suffering, that could be morally justifable to some.
Vigilante justice indicates a failure in the system to administer justice.
It is absolutely in society’s interest that someone who has caused deaths and misery of thousands is punished.
Punished, sure, but not murdered.
Luigi wasn’t really in a position where he could stop the CEO through any lesser use of force.
And that’s because it’s not his job to do so. Not every problem needs to be solvable by any given individual.
If he really was that passionate about the problem, he should’ve run for office to get into a position to solve the problem, or at least joined forces with some group that pushes for causes he believes in. Or started a business to compete with those businesses he disagrees with. Those would all be proactive steps he could take. Killing a CEO doesn’t solve anything, another will take his place, and surely he knew that.
Running for office wouldn’t have stopped the CEO from continuing to murder thousands, since the CEO and his shareholders literally spend billions making sure people who would stop them don’t get elected.
Yeah, this is why adventurism doesn’t really work. The guy’s actions were ineffective at systemic change, however just they may have been.
You’re right, and neither does this extrajudicial killing. Nothing changed in insurance policie, and nothing will likely change. But running for office has a much better chance of helping people in the future than murdering a CEO.
And yeah, insurance companies spend billions lobbying government, and that’s why running for office yourself is valuable, you can refuse to accept these donations. You need to find your own powerful group to get you elected (maybe labor unions?), because that’s how the game is played, but there are options if you’re laser focused on one type of policy.
Justice is the lawful administration of law, and extrajudicial killing is, by definition, unjust. Depending on your moral code, I also argue it’s immoral, because it’s only moral to kill to protect innocent lives, and retribution isn’t protection.
If killing this person was likely to actually change company policy, I could see it as moral, but there’s absolutely no way a reasonable person would think that. This was a crime of passion, not of justice.
What this CEOs and others like him do is a crime of greed. Which is infinitely worse and they get away with it. No Justice.
Sure, and the solution to that isn’t murder, but holding them accountable to things like contract violations or unreasonably complicated contracts. That’s an issue for the DOJ/AG, not vigilantes.
I agree with the sentiment, but all the labor unions in the country couldn’t hold a candle to the potential damage a billionaire could do to an independent campaign, let alone a cabal of them. They don’t play fairly in politics, and they’re not above using advertising and media to direct a narrative that benefits their interests.
That’s not to say I’m endorsing violence. After seeing Bezos and Musk manipulate news media and social media, respectively, I just don’t have much hope in the system anymore.
We all know that doesn’t work.
Killing a CEO certainly doesn’t solve anything…
We’ll see about that.
Are you advocating torture?
No, investigations by the various 3-letter agencies.
Nah, that rich fuck had it coming, shooter is a hero.
We have a president who says that he could do exactly what The Adjuster did, and get away with it. If the president can do it, why not this guy?
I don’t like it, but this is our world right now.
Hey DM, can I get a reroll?
I guess people are saying that they believe there is such a thing as an ethical murder in the streets. Of course in any form of ethics vacuum chamber this can’t stand. But in the real world where children are bombed for the sake of some asshole’s religion, where the president boasts he could get away with murder in the street and courts confirm this, in a world where sick people are left to suffer to boost a share price, then, THEN an act like this becomes a reasonable response to an unreasonable world.
Maybe someone better educated can tell me what ethics scholars have to say about how an ethical actor should behave in a system where ethics have utterly broken down. Right now, the crowd is saying “like that guy.”
I’m ill-disposed to wag my finger at them, and think the only ethical course is to address the corrupt environment in which this act occurred, because that environment undermines any one-dimensional ethical evaluation of this murder in the street, and that makes me deeply uncomfortable.
The comment I replied to wasn’t cheering on a murderer.
The comment I replied to was trying to convey that an impoverished person may feel like the reward money for turning in a murderer outweighs any moralizing over the murder itself. That the dollar figure could be literally life changing and they may feel they have no option but to turn them in.
And people downvoted that. Hence my shaken faith in people’s ability to empathize.