“i am sure you’d have preferred Gandhi to pick up a gun because he was met with violence?” we can chase eachother with such oversimplifications forever.
reality is much more complicated than such simple statements. so lets not use their inflammatory nature and focus on the actual problem. which, in that case seems, that people feel disbanded by sociaty to such a degree.
the ceo is just the effect, not the cause. the us laws allow such bullshit and do not protect the weak (at all). what this one ceo did was, like what many other ceo’s do, immoral but legal. you cant jail someone for legal stuff.
change the system and force them to adhere to modern moral standards. if they try to pull some bs now, it is quite easy to lock them away.
What the OP said means literally that if mass murdering people is legal, people will inevitably murder whoever makes the law and helps on that mass murdering. (What is not a universal law, but as sociology predictions go, is quite reliable.)
It’s not a hard concept to understand. Also, it has a very distant relation to morality or legality.
I just want to add to the conversation and bring forward the fact that health insurance corporations give millions to both parties during election cycles and continuously lobby for a system that allows them to do what they are currently doing.
The people in the government aren’t just writing laws that allow health insurance companies to do whatever they want for shits and giggles. They’re convinced. Either by pressure campaigns done by their lobbyists or they just straight up use bribes. It’s seriously fucked up, and when I think corruption can’t get worse I learn something new and find out it already is far worse than I ever imagined.
I agree, that was (supposed to be) my point, too. ‘Murder is wrong in every case, no matter the context’ is too black and white, and just sitting on a high horse and preaching won’t remedy the underlying situation. The trolley problem exists for a reason. The French revolution was supposed to be the extreme counter example to disprove OP’s stance, since most people will look at the French revolution as justified and necessary, but murder was very much part of it.
The ‘violent revolution inevitable’ quote was meant to show that it’s still a last resort, but alas, we’re apparently approaching that point.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
I’m sure you’d have preferred France to remain a monarchy because of moral absolutism?
That’s the logical conclusion to draw when someone is criticizing the celebration of a vigilante murderer.
No, I think we need more people like him. Much more. I’m sure that’s a wonderful world to live in.
Eh, the world we currently live in is shit because of people like the one he vigilante murdered
you are painting an oversimplified picture.
“i am sure you’d have preferred Gandhi to pick up a gun because he was met with violence?” we can chase eachother with such oversimplifications forever.
reality is much more complicated than such simple statements. so lets not use their inflammatory nature and focus on the actual problem. which, in that case seems, that people feel disbanded by sociaty to such a degree.
The point is that the CEO wasn’t in jail for murder, was he?
What other options his victims had?
the ceo is just the effect, not the cause. the us laws allow such bullshit and do not protect the weak (at all). what this one ceo did was, like what many other ceo’s do, immoral but legal. you cant jail someone for legal stuff.
change the system and force them to adhere to modern moral standards. if they try to pull some bs now, it is quite easy to lock them away.
What the OP said means literally that if mass murdering people is legal, people will inevitably murder whoever makes the law and helps on that mass murdering. (What is not a universal law, but as sociology predictions go, is quite reliable.)
It’s not a hard concept to understand. Also, it has a very distant relation to morality or legality.
I just want to add to the conversation and bring forward the fact that health insurance corporations give millions to both parties during election cycles and continuously lobby for a system that allows them to do what they are currently doing.
The people in the government aren’t just writing laws that allow health insurance companies to do whatever they want for shits and giggles. They’re convinced. Either by pressure campaigns done by their lobbyists or they just straight up use bribes. It’s seriously fucked up, and when I think corruption can’t get worse I learn something new and find out it already is far worse than I ever imagined.
In many such cases the lobbying group actually writes the law, the congressperson just signs it.
I agree, that was (supposed to be) my point, too. ‘Murder is wrong in every case, no matter the context’ is too black and white, and just sitting on a high horse and preaching won’t remedy the underlying situation. The trolley problem exists for a reason. The French revolution was supposed to be the extreme counter example to disprove OP’s stance, since most people will look at the French revolution as justified and necessary, but murder was very much part of it.
The ‘violent revolution inevitable’ quote was meant to show that it’s still a last resort, but alas, we’re apparently approaching that point.
This isn’t a binary. You can oppose absolutism, revolutionary terror and the current neoliberal status quo all at the same time.
I agree with both of you
Lemmy cannot do that