He led an enterprise with the goal and the result of making a bit more money by ending and ruining numerous lives. And he made it the most extreme case of such an enterprise.
And yes, when somebody has a life threatening or disabling condition, and their established medical provider prescribes the best standard of care, and the money guy says “nope I don’t think you need that, denied” they are actively doing harm to numerous people for a small monetary return. That is evil.
It is LAWFUL Evil, however. Yes, just like in D&D, but it is an apt description for many real people. Genuinely bad people can appeal to the “rule of law” just as easily as genuinely good people when it suits them.
It is not an accident, or an unforeseen consequence, or even negligence. It is an intentional decision to harm others in order to make a bit more money than he would otherwise.
Compare with something like a drunk driver. They are generally looked down upon, and if somebody drives into a tree at 100mph with a BAC triple the limit, not many people outside their own family will shed a tear for them. But that does not mean those people support the death penalty for DUI convictions. If the driver kills somebody else and lives, then maybe it turns into negligent homicide. They get a pretty bad punishment because their actions can directly be proven to have caused an innocent death. And it may have been predictable, but it wasn’t intentional.
Brian Thompson set policies that caused many orders of magnitude more death and suffering than any drunk driver could hope to. And more importantly, his plans were to continue doing more of the same. So it’s not a question of what punishment he deserved, but of preventing future death and suffering. You know, the #1 thing that makes homicide justifiable.
However, having “the law” on his side, there were legal and corporate structures in place to insulate his decisions from the direct 1:1 cause and effect tied to each individual death and to each individual day of suffering. That gets him off the hook legally, but in no way does it do so morally.
I used to think more like you. Surely since the rule of law is the ideal, we should choose that side of any argument like this. But I have seen too much bad shit done by people whose primary skill is arguing in bad faith to make horrible things sound palatable. The law is not divinely inspired, it is written by humans. And sure, most of us will agree that people can get it wrong. But it is even more important to recognize that laws can be created with malicious intent as well.
And I will not be blocking you, because I would like to hear some of your actual thought process and hopefully not a low effort quip or just crickets.
He led an enterprise with the goal and the result of making a bit more money by ending and ruining numerous lives.
He led an enterprise with the goal of making money by offering healthcare insurance. Unless you’re a mind reader, then your assumption that he wanted it to be earned specifically by ending and ruining lives is conjecture.
the money guy says “nope I don’t think you need that, denied”
“I don’t think you need that” is not a valid reason for rejecting a claim. They cannot simply say no without providing a reason.
they are actively doing harm to numerous people for a small monetary return
How does that work? Where does this return come from?
They get a pretty bad punishment because their actions can directly be proven to have caused an innocent death. And it may have been predictable, but it wasn’t intentional.
Who doles out this punishment?
Brian Thompson set policies that caused many orders of magnitude more death and suffering
What policies are those? Be specific.
However, having “the law” on his side, there were legal and corporate structures in place to insulate his decisions
Which decisions are those and what laws helped insulate them. Be specific.
I used to think more like you. Surely since the rule of law is the ideal, we should choose that side of any argument like this.
I do not think the rule of law is ideal. I think there are tons of laws on the books that are immoral. I also notice the killer didn’t target any of these lawmakers.
I also don’t care about Brian Thompson as a person, I don’t care that he’s dead either.
In fact, I think it’s possible to have a situation where vigilante justice is morally justified.
He led an enterprise with the goal and the result of making a bit more money by ending and ruining numerous lives. And he made it the most extreme case of such an enterprise.
And yes, when somebody has a life threatening or disabling condition, and their established medical provider prescribes the best standard of care, and the money guy says “nope I don’t think you need that, denied” they are actively doing harm to numerous people for a small monetary return. That is evil.
It is LAWFUL Evil, however. Yes, just like in D&D, but it is an apt description for many real people. Genuinely bad people can appeal to the “rule of law” just as easily as genuinely good people when it suits them.
It is not an accident, or an unforeseen consequence, or even negligence. It is an intentional decision to harm others in order to make a bit more money than he would otherwise.
Compare with something like a drunk driver. They are generally looked down upon, and if somebody drives into a tree at 100mph with a BAC triple the limit, not many people outside their own family will shed a tear for them. But that does not mean those people support the death penalty for DUI convictions. If the driver kills somebody else and lives, then maybe it turns into negligent homicide. They get a pretty bad punishment because their actions can directly be proven to have caused an innocent death. And it may have been predictable, but it wasn’t intentional.
Brian Thompson set policies that caused many orders of magnitude more death and suffering than any drunk driver could hope to. And more importantly, his plans were to continue doing more of the same. So it’s not a question of what punishment he deserved, but of preventing future death and suffering. You know, the #1 thing that makes homicide justifiable.
However, having “the law” on his side, there were legal and corporate structures in place to insulate his decisions from the direct 1:1 cause and effect tied to each individual death and to each individual day of suffering. That gets him off the hook legally, but in no way does it do so morally.
I used to think more like you. Surely since the rule of law is the ideal, we should choose that side of any argument like this. But I have seen too much bad shit done by people whose primary skill is arguing in bad faith to make horrible things sound palatable. The law is not divinely inspired, it is written by humans. And sure, most of us will agree that people can get it wrong. But it is even more important to recognize that laws can be created with malicious intent as well.
And I will not be blocking you, because I would like to hear some of your actual thought process and hopefully not a low effort quip or just crickets.
He led an enterprise with the goal of making money by offering healthcare insurance. Unless you’re a mind reader, then your assumption that he wanted it to be earned specifically by ending and ruining lives is conjecture.
“I don’t think you need that” is not a valid reason for rejecting a claim. They cannot simply say no without providing a reason.
How does that work? Where does this return come from?
Who doles out this punishment?
What policies are those? Be specific.
Which decisions are those and what laws helped insulate them. Be specific.
I do not think the rule of law is ideal. I think there are tons of laws on the books that are immoral. I also notice the killer didn’t target any of these lawmakers.
I also don’t care about Brian Thompson as a person, I don’t care that he’s dead either.
In fact, I think it’s possible to have a situation where vigilante justice is morally justified.
This is not one of those cases.