2 ms·

it's somehow OK in context of holding up a commercial aircraft I do not agree that business must have priority, and while I recognise the practical nature of t

it's somehow OK in context of holding up a commercial aircraft I do not agree that business must have priority, and while I recognise the practical nature of the universe in which we live, I do not subscribe to the axiom that the needs of the many inherently outweigh the needs of the few. I suspect our differences are simply axiomatic. They also tend to count in context of litigation Litigation is all about trying to make things better after something bad happened. We can never make things right because we cannot change the past, so litigation is not a solution; it's mitigation. I subscribe to the idea that it is better for that bad thing not to have happened. On a personal note, I suspect (but cannot prove) that the doctrine of letting people do bad things because we can litigate later is corrosive to society.

rl3 10y ago
>...I do not subscribe to the axiom that the needs of the many inherently outweigh the needs of the few. Generally speaking I'm in agreement with you there. It's just that I view giving up a paid seat due to rare but exigent circumstances analogous to motorists involved in a minor collision pulling off to the side of the road as a common courtesy. >We can never make things right because we cannot change the past, so litigation is not a solution; it's mitigation. Litigation is somewhat of an imperfect solution when it acts as a deterrent. >On a personal note, I suspect (but cannot prove) that the doctrine of letting people do bad things because we can litigate later is corrosive to society. Agreed, but unfortunately there's far from perfect oversight of corporate behavior. Even when you're talking cases where people die due to gross negligence, criminal charges are extremely rare. Litigation—when it has merit—acts as an imperfect second line of defense against misbehavior that would otherwise go unpunished. It's capitalism's way of keeping itself in check. It is however far from perfect. Many companies will simply fight meritorious litigation on the basis that it's the cheaper option, regardless if doing so is morally bankrupt. For example, a company may decide issuing a recall for an issue that kills people is more expensive than just dragging the existing litigation out as much as they can.

rl3 10y ago

>...I do not subscribe to the axiom that the needs of the many inherently outweigh the needs of the few. Generally speaking I'm in agreement with you there. It's just that I view giving up a paid seat due to rare but exigent circumstances analogous to motorists involved in a minor collision pulling off to the side of the road as a common courtesy. >We can never make things right because we cannot change the past, so litigation is not a solution; it's mitigation. Litigation is somewhat of an imperfect solution when it acts as a deterrent. >On a personal note, I suspect (but cannot prove) that the doctrine of letting people do bad things because we can litigate later is corrosive to society. Agreed, but unfortunately there's far from perfect oversight of corporate behavior. Even when you're talking cases where people die due to gross negligence, criminal charges are extremely rare. Litigation—when it has merit—acts as an imperfect second line of defense against misbehavior that would otherwise go unpunished. It's capitalism's way of keeping itself in check. It is however far from perfect. Many companies will simply fight meritorious litigation on the basis that it's the cheaper option, regardless if doing so is morally bankrupt. For example, a company may decide issuing a recall for an issue that kills people is more expensive than just dragging the existing litigation out as much as they can.