Find the name of the guy and make him a hero. Positive reinforcement!
I don't know why Conservatives should be worried about this, this is exactly what they want - the Free Market behaving properly.
This guy used the Free Market to operate his business on the edge of legality long enough that his behavior eventually spawned a set of employees who decided to make a correction to his "system." Unfortunately for him, their "correction" was lethal. However, at the end of his life, I'll bet he realized that he pushed the Free Market a little too far, and this was simply a normal correction to the Free Market.
allegedly. maybe that millionaire just fell down an elevator shaft and onto some bullets
I think this story talks about it: https://people.com/kidnapped-ceo-slain-in-mountains-his-ex-employee-trial-claims-pushups-for-paychecks-11847849
Oh no! Anyway.
I'm not... Sad. Normally I should be sad. I feel like humanity offers less and less. I cheered Luigi, and now I'm like "yeah, I get it" .. wtf
Because deontology says the act of causing harm should be inherently bad, but utilitarianism says you should do what creates the most good.
I can't side with utilitarianism for the example of killing a healthy person to harvest organs for multiple dying patients. For the powerful who gladly profit off of the suffering of millions and the destruction of our environment... it's harder to say utilitarianism feels wrong.
Utilitarianism as a philosophy is basically the acknowledgement that life is messy and trying to come up with universal rules of behaviour for all scenarios is basically impossible. So they essentially went "fuck it" and came up with a philosophy that revels in the fact that it has no regard for nuance or situational contingencies.
Anybody who actually lived like that would be a monumental pain in the arse.
My stance on that example is that it is consistent with utilitarianism to not harvest healthy people because the mere act of doing so causes harm to all the other healthy people that weren't harvested in the for of fear that they could be at some later point down the line.
I don't remember where exactly, but I've encountered an hybrid approach that balances utilitarianism with deontology. It goes something like this:
Take, for example, the case of a mass shooter. Utilitarianism says you are allowed to take them down if that's the only way to save their victims. Naive deontology says you are not allowed to kill whatsoever. The approach I've just presented says that we can go with utilitarianism in this case - but only because the shooter is one responsible for this mess so it's okay to harm them for the greater good.
Note that it does not say it's okay to kill them otherwise. If you manage to capture them, an other lives are no longer in risk, both deontology and utilitarianism will agree you are not allowed to kill them.
Let's go back to the classic Trolley Problem. Is the person tied to the second track responsible for the situation? No - they are a victim. They are not stripped from their deontological protection, and therefore you are not allowed to sacrifice them in order to save the other five.
Back to the case in hand. We need to ask the following questions:
If the answer to all three questions is "yes" - then what's the problem?
What about decreasing the harm of the employees by suing him or reporting him to the state labor board or even just kicking his ass or any combination thereof. The above seems overly simplistic.
I can't side with utilitarianism for the example of killing a healthy person to harvest organs for multiple dying patients.
That's because utilitarianism has a silent other half to the problem, which is something like confidence.
Can you judge the value of one life against another? Can you do it with accurate assessment of your own perception? How much harm is introduced to the equation if you're wrong? How likely are you wrong?
Killing one healthy person to save 5 others doesn't meet the utilitarian standard because you're destroying one innocent life for parts. Parts that could maybe save others... But you can put a price on organs. You can't undo the harm of killing someone
In fact, even considering it isn't utilitarian. The time and energy spent on weighing the value of a life vs the value of the meat should be spent on looking for solutions
Even if there is no other solution no human can truly know that...
But sometimes the numbers do become statistics. Like the trolley problem... There is a very predictable result, if you knew of a way to stop the trolley there's no need for considering it, and you have to make a snap decision. You have to weigh their lives against each other, knowing you have limited knowledge
But the more people on one set of tracks, the easier that math becomes. There's no line - it's all subjective. They're not numbers, they're people... But the bigger the number disparity, the easier it is to answer the question
And pulling the lever is competence check too. How sure are you that you understand the situation properly? Because maybe everything is fine, and you're about to get someone killed out of your own stupidity
And to bring it all home... One life sure as hell isn't worth the suffering and death of tens of millions. That's easy math.
But is the situation that simple? Would the killing of one actually save millions? I sure as hell don't know. It's very situational
So if someone else pulls the lever I think it's perfectly ethical to support them, hoping that their judgement is correct, while also not being confident enough to ever pull the lever yourself
If doctors regularly harvest healthy people's organs nobody goes to the doctor. The families of the harvested regularly kill themselves, recipients, and doctors, and sometimes go on mass shooting sprees. Everyone lives in fear. Nobody on earth would want to live in such a community so all the best and most mobile folks leave. Others organize against it and can only be suppressed by a fascist dystopia.
It's only actually a dilemma when considered in absolute isolation. Its against utility to harvest the organs in the sense that the system required to effect it is a massive negative.
Screw utilitarianism. At this point it's fucking self defence. Either those parasites stop existing, or everyone will. They're dead anyway, might as well save everyone else.
In recent years we have become increasingly familiar with the thought of death. We ourselves are surprised by the composure with which we accept the news of the death of our contemporaries. We can no longer hate Death so much; we have discovered something of kindness in his features and are almost reconciled to him.
It's not you, it's the world changing around you, or perhaps the world perceiving to change around you. I'm not sure the world has changed all that much, I think a lot of it is just us having better optics than we ever had. Rockefeller and Vanderbilt probably indirectly hurt/killed more people, but it wasn't broadcast as easily as it is now.
So, unions or being beaten to death.
Choose.
I mean we did used to drag them out into the street and beat them before unions. Unions are the more peaceful alternative
Well I’ll never get beaten to death because I’m a fun CEO and all my employees love me, so clearly we gotta side against unions. I’ll throw a few more pizza parties to be safe.
BREAKING NEWS: "Fun" CEO beaten to death with frozen pizzas. The pizzas were delivered warm, so the police suspect premeditated intent in freezing the pizzas for use as a blunt, deadly instrument. The CEO's customary grave-pissing will start, contingent on finding a suitable ditch.
This is literally how it works. Ringing our hands and hoping our Israeli owned politicians will do something to help us has been destroying the country
Well, the perpetrators will lose years of their lives to the prison system, that seems like some lost value.
Yeah... I'm hoping the other inmates give them the Luigi "Careful, he's a hero" treatment.
Story here https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/slain-calif-tech-ceo-humiliated-workers-report-21125144.php
The CEO sounded like an absolute cunt. When will they learn?
Gestures vaguely and non-incriminatingly
Seems to me we know how to make them learn...
Wow.
He made them work 14 consecutive 12+ hour days of physical labour (sun up to sun down) then bounced their cheques. Then, offered $1400 ($100/day = $8/hr, well below the CA minimum wage at the time) but only if they did 300-500 push ups, while bragging he makes thousands an hour.
Jesus that guy was an absolute asshole.
I propose a new law. If the victim of a murder is someone who owns a fortune more than 1000x the median household income, then someone on trial for the murder can make an affirmative defense that it was ok, simply because, "he needed killin.'"
Literally, if you can convince the jury that the guy had it coming, you get off Scott free. Anyone who wants to avoid potentially being killed and having their killer escape unpunished can avoid this fate by simply not hoarding wealth over the critical threshold. Those who hoard such fortunes will just have to live with enough kindness that no one could ever convince a jury that they deserved to die. We'll end up with no billionaires or every billionaire becoming like Fred Rogers. I'll take either outcome.
You’re describing lynching. No change in law is needed, juries are free to nullify the law. Governors and the President also have the power to pardon. It’s how the system was designed to work.
The thing that Neoliberals will grow to understand very quickly as material conditions worsen; is that FDR was not the savior of the working class. He was the savior of the capitalist FROM the working class. And right now, there isn't an FDR to be found.
And nobody will miss him.
Those fucking morons could have easily found a lawyer to take their case on contingency, sued him, won a ton, and probably uncovered all of his abuses, which would have led to him paying out a ton more money to present and past employees, probably bankrupting him, and very possibly putting him in prison for a few years. Far worse than death for that Putz.
Instead, they're serving life without parole.
Why would they learn? There's millions of them and they are rewarded so well for their tyranny. I think it's time to take all of them out.
Edit: i do not condone violence btw anytime anywhere
The CEO certainly was asking for it it seems
Did you see what they were wearing?!?
At least the pushups worked.
I feel like I would have nullified, had I been on the jury.
Fucker got "the Luigi".
Or is it "got Luigi'd"?
I actually don't like that. As far as I know Luigi is innocent.
I'd find this guy innocent too.
I like the term “blue shelled” as it’s someone near last place targeting someone in first.
He got weegee'd
Good fucking riddance 🤢
No notes.
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
