5 ms·

Agreed. When you actively advocate for this, do you face moral responsibility when someone prepares it wrong and dies? (I’m pretty sure the legal answer would

by dannyw 9y ago

Agreed. When you actively advocate for this, do you face moral responsibility when someone prepares it wrong and dies? (I’m pretty sure the legal answer would be yes on so many fronts)

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wavefunction 9y ago
I don't know that the legal system necessarily cares about morality or moral responsibility. It seems like the only criteria that would matter would be legal responsibility, whatever that standard might be.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  If you take actions which a reasonable person would expect to cause harm to others, there is a legal dimension there ranging from civil liability, to the extreme of 2nd degree murder via “depraved indifference” statutes.
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    Good points.
- steveeq1 9y ago
  Or the criteria: "which moral stance makes me the most profit?"
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  It isn't always about whether the legal system cares. They're asking whether or not moral people should care. Those can be very different.
Y_Y 9y ago
If you don't misrepresent it then I can hardly see how. Does the writer of a recipe book incur blame if someone undercooks their chicken?
wfo 9y ago
The moral answer is obviously no, given the context in which we live. That the moral and legal answers are completely opposite of each other is telling. Imagine a natural disaster happens, and the strong hoard more water and food and shelter and medicine than they could ever use in a million lifetimes and protect it with guns. Then you tell the poor "in an emergency scenario, here are some options to keep you and your children alive a few more days that aren't totally safe but are better than nothing. Your makeshift roof might fall down in a bad storm, your food won't be perfectly clean, but it's better than doing nothing and waiting to die". This is what is happening in the US. In this analogy, the natural disaster is free market capitalism, the strong are the ultrawealthy owning class, and the guns they use to protect their property are the police and legal system, who provide the violence that is inherently necessary to keep order in a massively unequal society.
- pxeboot 9y ago
  Except that our current health care system isn't anywhere close to free market capitalism.
  - wfo 9y ago
    It is the closest healthcare system in the developed world to free market capitalism since every other country has socialized medicine; a system much more free-market than ours would create an untenable hellscape for the vast majority of the population that would be voted into oblivion or cause massive riots and death. We sit at the most extreme free-market end of possible healthcare systems that could feasibly exist in reality. Imagine a true free market healthcare system. Or just one step further than ours: no medicare. Imagine if every middle-aged middle or lower class American had to, as their parents age and require more healthcare than anyone can feasibly afford, choose: bankruptcy and permanent insurmountable debt, or watch your parents die knowing you chose not to stop it. What glorious freedom.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      This all might sound like a plausible narrative, until single payer comes along, costs don't come down but go up and now we the debate will be which medical procedures will never be covered by government. Medicare costs 17% of GDP and it has 44 million people. If you expanded medicare to every single person in america (10x), how much do you think the GDP cost would be then? And what do you think will be the prescription at that point? Its also a ludicrous proposition to say that because its closer to free market, thats what makes it worse compared to socialized services. Its qualitatively different because it has tremendous regulation and rules. And the proposed solution is to add more regulation.
nostrademons 9y ago
Does the manufacturer of a gun face legal responsibility when someone uses it wrong and dies? An automobile? A swimming pool?
CamperBob2 9y ago
Agreed. When you actively advocate for this, do you face moral responsibility when someone prepares it wrong and dies? That risk exists no matter what you "actively advocate" for. When you actively advocate for Obamacare, do you face moral responsibility for those who were forced to take a much lower-quality insurance policy because the premiums on their existing unsubsidized policy doubled? Or, when you actively advocate for the repeal of Obamacare, do you face moral responsibility when a patient who can no longer afford insurance skips a critical doctor visit and dies as a result? Because humans are not mindless programmable automatons, mere advocates should not be held responsible for other peoples' actions. Otherwise, we'll end up throwing lawyers in jail for successfully representing guilty defendants who go on to commit further crimes.
conanbatt 9y ago
Of course yes. There has to be a deterrent for the snake oil salesmen and other dangerous kinds.

by dannyw 9y ago

Agreed. When you actively advocate for this, do you face moral responsibility when someone prepares it wrong and dies? (I’m pretty sure the legal answer would be yes on so many fronts)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

wavefunction 9y ago

I don't know that the legal system necessarily cares about morality or moral responsibility. It seems like the only criteria that would matter would be legal responsibility, whatever that standard might be.

QAPereo 9y ago
If you take actions which a reasonable person would expect to cause harm to others, there is a legal dimension there ranging from civil liability, to the extreme of 2nd degree murder via “depraved indifference” statutes.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Good points.
steveeq1 9y ago
Or the criteria: "which moral stance makes me the most profit?"
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
It isn't always about whether the legal system cares. They're asking whether or not moral people should care. Those can be very different.

Y_Y 9y ago

If you don't misrepresent it then I can hardly see how. Does the writer of a recipe book incur blame if someone undercooks their chicken?

wfo 9y ago

The moral answer is obviously no, given the context in which we live. That the moral and legal answers are completely opposite of each other is telling. Imagine a natural disaster happens, and the strong hoard more water and food and shelter and medicine than they could ever use in a million lifetimes and protect it with guns. Then you tell the poor "in an emergency scenario, here are some options to keep you and your children alive a few more days that aren't totally safe but are better than nothing. Your makeshift roof might fall down in a bad storm, your food won't be perfectly clean, but it's better than doing nothing and waiting to die". This is what is happening in the US. In this analogy, the natural disaster is free market capitalism, the strong are the ultrawealthy owning class, and the guns they use to protect their property are the police and legal system, who provide the violence that is inherently necessary to keep order in a massively unequal society.

pxeboot 9y ago
Except that our current health care system isn't anywhere close to free market capitalism.
- wfo 9y ago
  It is the closest healthcare system in the developed world to free market capitalism since every other country has socialized medicine; a system much more free-market than ours would create an untenable hellscape for the vast majority of the population that would be voted into oblivion or cause massive riots and death. We sit at the most extreme free-market end of possible healthcare systems that could feasibly exist in reality. Imagine a true free market healthcare system. Or just one step further than ours: no medicare. Imagine if every middle-aged middle or lower class American had to, as their parents age and require more healthcare than anyone can feasibly afford, choose: bankruptcy and permanent insurmountable debt, or watch your parents die knowing you chose not to stop it. What glorious freedom.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    This all might sound like a plausible narrative, until single payer comes along, costs don't come down but go up and now we the debate will be which medical procedures will never be covered by government. Medicare costs 17% of GDP and it has 44 million people. If you expanded medicare to every single person in america (10x), how much do you think the GDP cost would be then? And what do you think will be the prescription at that point? Its also a ludicrous proposition to say that because its closer to free market, thats what makes it worse compared to socialized services. Its qualitatively different because it has tremendous regulation and rules. And the proposed solution is to add more regulation.

nostrademons 9y ago

Does the manufacturer of a gun face legal responsibility when someone uses it wrong and dies? An automobile? A swimming pool?

CamperBob2 9y ago

Agreed. When you actively advocate for this, do you face moral responsibility when someone prepares it wrong and dies? That risk exists no matter what you "actively advocate" for. When you actively advocate for Obamacare, do you face moral responsibility for those who were forced to take a much lower-quality insurance policy because the premiums on their existing unsubsidized policy doubled? Or, when you actively advocate for the repeal of Obamacare, do you face moral responsibility when a patient who can no longer afford insurance skips a critical doctor visit and dies as a result? Because humans are not mindless programmable automatons, mere advocates should not be held responsible for other peoples' actions. Otherwise, we'll end up throwing lawyers in jail for successfully representing guilty defendants who go on to commit further crimes.

conanbatt 9y ago

Of course yes. There has to be a deterrent for the snake oil salesmen and other dangerous kinds.