The principle being complete subservience to a group of wall street military and prison industry profiteers who have used their wealth to hijack our social institutions, our representatives and transformed the vast majority of news media in our country into propaganda dissemination outlets While also enforcing a system that legislates and bureaucratically incentivizes the deaths of poor and working class people including American citizens for profit while denying the reality that this is called social murder and is murder none the less. A principle completely lacking in principle. Id love to know what you consider to be moral with principles such as those.
Rule utilitarianism states that “an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good”. Murder as a general is right. The reason is that this murder is just a short-term thing that doesn’t undo all the deaths that have happened. The general abidance to rule of law without self-justice is worth way more than any single person dying in nearly all cases.
In the categorical imperativ Kant argues that you should “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” If it became a universal law that you could kill anyone you deemed evil this would end in a worse result for everybody. Thus it cannot be wanted.
The family and friends around him mourn and the new CEO seems like he is not about to roll over and accept every health insurance claim. The death is dividing citizens which believe he is a hero while others believe he is a murderer. The responsibility off of all those unneeded deaths are claimed by not only the CEO but also by legislators who didn’t account for universal healthcare. It is on the sitting government and parties for not supporting change. It is on the employer partly for not buying a higher premium package that includes more things or choosing a different company with a smaller denial rate. It is on the individual employee inside UH denying claims. It is on upper management like Brian Thompson and the people around him who are at fault for making this worse. And then there’s the stakeholders that don’t press on more ethical practices. Then its also on Americans voting against parties that wish to change the healthcare system in a beneficial way for everybody.
As the head of a company Brian Thompson also had the responsibility to steer it in an ethical way which it seems he did not do. His death has sparked public debate which is a good thing. This does not necessarily mean choosing a murder was the right way of doing things that optimizes utility for everybody.
If the universal law became such that those being systematically exploited and ultimately sickened and or killed by systemic injustice could target those benefiting from the injustice then those incentivizing and committing the act of social murder would be incentivized to rethink their approach to profiting off the death and suffering of poor and marginalized people.
We seem to overlook that FDR’s new deal and the Fair Labor Standards act of 1938 was enacted as a compromise to prevent more violent rioting by the frustrated and exploited laborers during the gilded age. It was either the robber barons acquiesced to what was good for those doing the work giving them a fairer deal or those they were exploiting ruthlessly would have dragged them out into the streets and beaten them senseless or worse in front of their wives and children.
I think they way most people see it is that anyone in their right mind has a point where murder is okay. WWII, for example - the vast majority of people understand it was okay to kill Nazis. The context was that the world had no choice but to go to war with them. It was either kill or be killed.
We’re in the same situation here in the United States. Our political system is broken. Politicians are bought and sold by the 1%, and they will continue to kill us en masse no matter how many peaceful protests we join and whoever we vote for.
Not only is it that murder is ok for everyone at a certain point but its that we are conditioned to praise retributive violence and killing so long as the ones being beaten maimed and or killed are marginalized people whom the ultra wealthy see as sub human and their casualty benefit their end goals. Like all the non violent labor and civil rights protestors who have ended up bludgeoned by batons and less than lethal munitions, or targeted by extra judicial unconstitutional surveillance and suppression tactics such as yale used against pro Palestinian demonstrators over the last year. There are too many examples of this double standard to go over without writing a book as thick as the king james Bible.
I believe this is just not true. The US is one country. First-Past-The-Post system sucks but systematic change can happen. Its just… you guys elected Trump. I do not think the majority of Americans wants change bad enough. There is also no defeating the system through these actions. It would take a whole as insurrection, not one murder and I doubt anything good would come of it for the average American.
Im European so I really sympathize with the struggle for a decent healthcare system for you guys. I just don’t think this is the right way.
First-Past-The-Post system sucks but systematic change can happen. Its just… you guys elected Trump.
Systemic change is being made next to impossible due to the rampant legalised bribery and corruption at all levels of the political offices.
How would you even go about going against the corporate oligarchy? Your candidates will get primaried and out-funded, your party colleagues will get bribed to vote against tackling these issues, and that’s all assuming you could get close enough to having enough candidates for all races across the country, you get your messaging picked up by the media and you somehow poll so high that strategic voters won’t split the vote, actively putting the worst party in charge instead.
You’d somehow have to get elected, get enough supreme court justices pushed through and have them repeal Citizens United to even get started. That’s a tall order to ask from a political class that actively benefits from the current situation.
It should probably need to be a public grassroots movement. The public would need to be so outraged about the lack of change that democratically elected officials couldn’t ignore the needs of the public if they want to be taken seriously. Public strikes and protests can work. The media and public need to keep speaking out about this issue. Citizens movements and effective messaging is possible, even if you don’t have the corporate world to back you. And honestly most rich people that are not directly involved in healthcare shouldn’t really care. Like whats the benefit for you as someone wealthy to stop public healthcare if you yourself are not invested? You will still be able to purchase additional insurance if public insurance would ever become reality. You would still be able to pay for special treatments. I don’t see them fighting against this like slave-owners fighting against the abolishment of slavery.
What I didn’t know… Is public healthcare actually made illegal by the supreme court? I’m not too deep into US law and such as I don’t personally live there. What are your thoughts?
Is public healthcare actually made illegal by the supreme court?
No, Citizens United is the effective legalization of public bribery, masked as “political donations”.
The problem is that you’re never going to get that grassroots movement built up. The healthcare companies rake in billions, they’ll happily spend that to ensure they can keep existing. And other billionaire corporations will join in too, because why risk a party willing to deal with healtcare companies getting power? What else will that party do that could harm their precious profits?
They’ll invest billions to primary candidates, buy media coverage, demonize their opponents or even fabricate fake negative PR. That grassroots movement would be stamped out, as you won’t be able to get enough votes. That’ll put a party like the GOP in charge and they will pass as many voter disenfranchisement laws, gerrymandering laws, etc… to ensure you need massive majorities to barely get 50% of the representation.
People are already pissed with the state of healthcare, so much so that they’re collectively cheering for the murder of a CEO. Yet no grassroots campaign is in sight. By the time the next election rolls around American voters will already have forgotten about that CEO and will be more concerned about inflation or migration or whatever-the-fuck the media has decided to focus on.
I think by the time you get enough Americans on board with a grassroots campaign powerful enough to actually make changes, you are at such a high level of public anger a violent revolution is nearly inevitable.
Murder is an unjustified killing. Killing somebody who is socially murdering people is a form of self defence and is thus not murder. Don’t try and change my mind. Not condoning any action though and I would prefer if the CEO got a jail sentence instead (but that would never happen).
How is that hypocritical? I’m sure most people would want to see the CEO serving life instead, but his ilk are not who the prisons are made for. Slavery and murder can be legal when done with policy, and rather than the state going after these villains it defends them with force.
The difference is self defense. As stated elsewhere in this thread, we should all agree its morally acceptable to kill nazis. With them, it’s either kill or be killed. If we didn’t step up against them in WW2 it would have been disastrous. And with CEOs, billionaires, and other business execs it’s no different. They’re actively killing everyone they can as quickly as they can because it makes them a quick buck.
So ultimately it boils down to self defense.
A state however gets no self defense out of capital punishment. It instead becomes a way to silence political opponents, innocents routinely are executed, and so on. The state cannot be granted the power to kill because it will abuse it. The people eventually need to defend themselves from the state when it is granted this power.
The violence of the oppressed is not the same as the violence of the oppressor.
This is not about defending billionaires, this is about condemning murder as a matter of principle!
Then why murder than happened on same day had no manhunt?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The principle being complete subservience to a group of wall street military and prison industry profiteers who have used their wealth to hijack our social institutions, our representatives and transformed the vast majority of news media in our country into propaganda dissemination outlets While also enforcing a system that legislates and bureaucratically incentivizes the deaths of poor and working class people including American citizens for profit while denying the reality that this is called social murder and is murder none the less. A principle completely lacking in principle. Id love to know what you consider to be moral with principles such as those.
Username fucking checks out.
Rule utilitarianism states that “an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good”. Murder as a general is right. The reason is that this murder is just a short-term thing that doesn’t undo all the deaths that have happened. The general abidance to rule of law without self-justice is worth way more than any single person dying in nearly all cases.
In the categorical imperativ Kant argues that you should “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” If it became a universal law that you could kill anyone you deemed evil this would end in a worse result for everybody. Thus it cannot be wanted.
The family and friends around him mourn and the new CEO seems like he is not about to roll over and accept every health insurance claim. The death is dividing citizens which believe he is a hero while others believe he is a murderer. The responsibility off of all those unneeded deaths are claimed by not only the CEO but also by legislators who didn’t account for universal healthcare. It is on the sitting government and parties for not supporting change. It is on the employer partly for not buying a higher premium package that includes more things or choosing a different company with a smaller denial rate. It is on the individual employee inside UH denying claims. It is on upper management like Brian Thompson and the people around him who are at fault for making this worse. And then there’s the stakeholders that don’t press on more ethical practices. Then its also on Americans voting against parties that wish to change the healthcare system in a beneficial way for everybody.
As the head of a company Brian Thompson also had the responsibility to steer it in an ethical way which it seems he did not do. His death has sparked public debate which is a good thing. This does not necessarily mean choosing a murder was the right way of doing things that optimizes utility for everybody.
If the universal law became such that those being systematically exploited and ultimately sickened and or killed by systemic injustice could target those benefiting from the injustice then those incentivizing and committing the act of social murder would be incentivized to rethink their approach to profiting off the death and suffering of poor and marginalized people.
We seem to overlook that FDR’s new deal and the Fair Labor Standards act of 1938 was enacted as a compromise to prevent more violent rioting by the frustrated and exploited laborers during the gilded age. It was either the robber barons acquiesced to what was good for those doing the work giving them a fairer deal or those they were exploiting ruthlessly would have dragged them out into the streets and beaten them senseless or worse in front of their wives and children.
I think they way most people see it is that anyone in their right mind has a point where murder is okay. WWII, for example - the vast majority of people understand it was okay to kill Nazis. The context was that the world had no choice but to go to war with them. It was either kill or be killed.
We’re in the same situation here in the United States. Our political system is broken. Politicians are bought and sold by the 1%, and they will continue to kill us en masse no matter how many peaceful protests we join and whoever we vote for.
Not only is it that murder is ok for everyone at a certain point but its that we are conditioned to praise retributive violence and killing so long as the ones being beaten maimed and or killed are marginalized people whom the ultra wealthy see as sub human and their casualty benefit their end goals. Like all the non violent labor and civil rights protestors who have ended up bludgeoned by batons and less than lethal munitions, or targeted by extra judicial unconstitutional surveillance and suppression tactics such as yale used against pro Palestinian demonstrators over the last year. There are too many examples of this double standard to go over without writing a book as thick as the king james Bible.
I believe this is just not true. The US is one country. First-Past-The-Post system sucks but systematic change can happen. Its just… you guys elected Trump. I do not think the majority of Americans wants change bad enough. There is also no defeating the system through these actions. It would take a whole as insurrection, not one murder and I doubt anything good would come of it for the average American.
Im European so I really sympathize with the struggle for a decent healthcare system for you guys. I just don’t think this is the right way.
Systemic change is being made next to impossible due to the rampant legalised bribery and corruption at all levels of the political offices.
How would you even go about going against the corporate oligarchy? Your candidates will get primaried and out-funded, your party colleagues will get bribed to vote against tackling these issues, and that’s all assuming you could get close enough to having enough candidates for all races across the country, you get your messaging picked up by the media and you somehow poll so high that strategic voters won’t split the vote, actively putting the worst party in charge instead.
You’d somehow have to get elected, get enough supreme court justices pushed through and have them repeal Citizens United to even get started. That’s a tall order to ask from a political class that actively benefits from the current situation.
It should probably need to be a public grassroots movement. The public would need to be so outraged about the lack of change that democratically elected officials couldn’t ignore the needs of the public if they want to be taken seriously. Public strikes and protests can work. The media and public need to keep speaking out about this issue. Citizens movements and effective messaging is possible, even if you don’t have the corporate world to back you. And honestly most rich people that are not directly involved in healthcare shouldn’t really care. Like whats the benefit for you as someone wealthy to stop public healthcare if you yourself are not invested? You will still be able to purchase additional insurance if public insurance would ever become reality. You would still be able to pay for special treatments. I don’t see them fighting against this like slave-owners fighting against the abolishment of slavery.
What I didn’t know… Is public healthcare actually made illegal by the supreme court? I’m not too deep into US law and such as I don’t personally live there. What are your thoughts?
No, Citizens United is the effective legalization of public bribery, masked as “political donations”.
The problem is that you’re never going to get that grassroots movement built up. The healthcare companies rake in billions, they’ll happily spend that to ensure they can keep existing. And other billionaire corporations will join in too, because why risk a party willing to deal with healtcare companies getting power? What else will that party do that could harm their precious profits?
They’ll invest billions to primary candidates, buy media coverage, demonize their opponents or even fabricate fake negative PR. That grassroots movement would be stamped out, as you won’t be able to get enough votes. That’ll put a party like the GOP in charge and they will pass as many voter disenfranchisement laws, gerrymandering laws, etc… to ensure you need massive majorities to barely get 50% of the representation.
People are already pissed with the state of healthcare, so much so that they’re collectively cheering for the murder of a CEO. Yet no grassroots campaign is in sight. By the time the next election rolls around American voters will already have forgotten about that CEO and will be more concerned about inflation or migration or whatever-the-fuck the media has decided to focus on.
I think by the time you get enough Americans on board with a grassroots campaign powerful enough to actually make changes, you are at such a high level of public anger a violent revolution is nearly inevitable.
Murder is an unjustified killing. Killing somebody who is socially murdering people is a form of self defence and is thus not murder. Don’t try and change my mind. Not condoning any action though and I would prefer if the CEO got a jail sentence instead (but that would never happen).
deleted by creator
How is that hypocritical? I’m sure most people would want to see the CEO serving life instead, but his ilk are not who the prisons are made for. Slavery and murder can be legal when done with policy, and rather than the state going after these villains it defends them with force.
The difference is self defense. As stated elsewhere in this thread, we should all agree its morally acceptable to kill nazis. With them, it’s either kill or be killed. If we didn’t step up against them in WW2 it would have been disastrous. And with CEOs, billionaires, and other business execs it’s no different. They’re actively killing everyone they can as quickly as they can because it makes them a quick buck.
So ultimately it boils down to self defense.
A state however gets no self defense out of capital punishment. It instead becomes a way to silence political opponents, innocents routinely are executed, and so on. The state cannot be granted the power to kill because it will abuse it. The people eventually need to defend themselves from the state when it is granted this power.
The violence of the oppressed is not the same as the violence of the oppressor.