So what you’re saying is: open season on health insurance execs unless they make it a policy of paying out 100% of claims?
I see a lot of consequentialist takes like this around here. I’m not going to go ahead and say that consequentialism is an invalid ethics. But you do need to think farther ahead than the next move on this one.
The way I see it, if you declare open season on rich people then you end up in Robocop dystopia land. If that’s what you intended, fair enough. I don’t want that! I think most people don’t want that!
I’d say profiteering off the suffering and death of the unfortunate is grounds for being labeled an evil sociopath. Not to mention that they are so rich that they are essentially above the law.
So what you’re saying is: open season on health insurance execs unless they make it a policy of paying out 100% of claims?
Yeah. We wanted universal healthcare, and got slightly better coverage, but kept the pre-existing death panels conservatives were so fucking scared of being implemented. You keep people poor, sick, unhealthy and unhappy, don’t be fucking surprised when they lash out.
We wanted to improve our station, and someone is going to take it into their own hands, like they did here. I’m not going to say this was right or wrong, but it’s far from unexpected.
Personally I believe it is wrong to kill people even if you think they deserve to die. That’s, I think, some of the essence of the law, too. So while I might think that certain people in the world deserve to die, and I might be pretty pleased if they do, I still wouldn’t murder them myself. Nor would I want to see murder against anyone legalised… Because again, just because I believe they deserve it doesn’t mean I’m right. I’m still pleased if it happens. I don’t think there’s really a dissonance there.
So what you’re saying is: open season on health insurance execs unless they make it a policy of paying out 100% of claims?
I see a lot of consequentialist takes like this around here. I’m not going to go ahead and say that consequentialism is an invalid ethics. But you do need to think farther ahead than the next move on this one.
The way I see it, if you declare open season on rich people then you end up in Robocop dystopia land. If that’s what you intended, fair enough. I don’t want that! I think most people don’t want that!
Yes.
I’d say profiteering off the suffering and death of the unfortunate is grounds for being labeled an evil sociopath. Not to mention that they are so rich that they are essentially above the law.
YES PLEASE
(we already live in dystopia)
Yeah. We wanted universal healthcare, and got slightly better coverage, but kept the pre-existing death panels conservatives were so fucking scared of being implemented. You keep people poor, sick, unhealthy and unhappy, don’t be fucking surprised when they lash out.
We wanted to improve our station, and someone is going to take it into their own hands, like they did here. I’m not going to say this was right or wrong, but it’s far from unexpected.
Personally I believe it is wrong to kill people even if you think they deserve to die. That’s, I think, some of the essence of the law, too. So while I might think that certain people in the world deserve to die, and I might be pretty pleased if they do, I still wouldn’t murder them myself. Nor would I want to see murder against anyone legalised… Because again, just because I believe they deserve it doesn’t mean I’m right. I’m still pleased if it happens. I don’t think there’s really a dissonance there.