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.
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.
The downvotes on this really make me question my faith in humanity.
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.
We all know that doesn’t work.
Are you advocating torture?
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?
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.