3 ms·
If you are in a position of power, why should you care whether people hate your guts? And only people that don't depend on you or that don't benefit from a good
by smoe 6y ago
If you are in a position of power, why should you care whether people hate your guts? And only people that don't depend on you or that don't benefit from a good relationship with you will treat you like a monster.
There is quite the discrepancy for example in European history between royals acting like monsters and people treating them as such. Sure, eventually you'll have the people grab the pitchforks and roll out the guillotine, but you might not want to wait that long.
How much true accountability is there for those people making the choices under the banner of the corporations?
In my opinion, big part of what law should be, whoever is in charge of enforcing it, is a set of rules based on societies ethical compass. If someone can get away taking advantage and abusing others, this begs the question if those acts are in fact unethical, or if the the law needs updating.
It is not about shifting blame for behavior onto the law, but how you decide what behavior is blameworthy and should be punished. And I much prefer having a at least a somewhat transparent formalized system for this over Mob justice.
- ultraluminous 6y agoLynching slaves was immoral, unethical and "blameworthy" before it became illegal.
- smoe 6y agoAnd did it stop because people felt bad about themselves doing so or because some people were pointing fingers at them? Look, I absolutely agree that something can be and often is immoral, unethical and "blameworthy" before it is illegal, and maybe my non-native English is a bit clunky. But I do not care about having the moral high ground. I care about continued bad behavior having consequences, society protecting itself from bad actors. This can indeed be done trough various means (non exhaustive): - Create incentives to act in a more desired way - Call for boycotts and shunning them socially to try to force them to change - Change the environment so bad behavior no longer provides benefits - Create / update law - Actually enforce the existing law - Having increasingly big protest movements up to revolution / civil war scale I'm fine with any combination of those depending on context and/or as different steps of escalation. I just think a bunch of people voicing anger at corporations on the internet doesn't do anything and, on the other hand, in a lot of places the situation is not bad enough to justify violence yet. So I lean towards a middle way using the instruments of these supposed democracies to change things.