4 ms·
One is accepting the risk of not knowing almost infinite amount of chemical interaction of human bodies vs some novel chemistry but still maximizing the safety
by saiya-jin 5y ago
One is accepting the risk of not knowing almost infinite amount of chemical interaction of human bodies vs some novel chemistry but still maximizing the safety as its simply the right thing to do for everybody long term, including J&J. The other is accepting the usage of highly-questionable-at-best compounds as part of baby care products, because current bonuses take priority above everything else.
Evil comes in many ways. This can be argued is just massive negligence and ignorance, or even arrogance. As a father, when all this topic is paired with babies, I don't mind calling it evil and treat it as such.
- abfan1127 5y agoagreed on all points, except the assumption of evil. There is certainly evil in the world, yet "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Malice or stupidity, they both should be held accountable. They are prepared to be held accountable using this fund. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
- msrenee 5y agoI'd say greed falls somewhere much closer to malice than stupidity.
- TheTester 5y agoIts evil in the sense of the banality of evil. They likely did not choose to put benzene in there but they have to think "nobody ever got in trouble for buying IBM" or in this case "nobody ever got in trouble for choosing the cheapest sweatshop (with some credentials to appear almost ethical) in China". There is no evil Doctor laughing in a castle planning to add benzene to things however it is pretty evil to dismiss QA and client safety in a way as reckless as they have. At the end of the day they can always say " I was just following orders" or " I was only trying to maximize profit"