5 ms·

I get the sentiment, but if I stop and think about it, I don't understand the math. I'm not intending to criticize since I struggle with this myself. Try on t

I get the sentiment, but if I stop and think about it, I don't understand the math. I'm not intending to criticize since I struggle with this myself. Try on this hypothetical. Imagine that ten people in a giant company called ACME made some decisions that led to 50,000 people getting hurt. ACME also employs 100,000 hard working people, representing perhaps 0.3-0.4 million family members dependent upon that income. Imagine further that ACME's other products have dramatically improved the lives of hundreds of millions of other people. Given that scenario, does the ethical math really work for ACME to be completely destroyed? It is easy to see how the 10 decision makers should be punished. It is also easy to see how the people who were hurt should be compensated in some way. Destroying ACME entirely will harm lots of other people so it is not clear how to justify that. It is a very frustrating domain because we think of these companies as monoliths, but they are really just a large collection of mostly very decent people.

tempest_ 3y ago
Reads like a "too big to fail" argument. It works for the banking industry I guess so why not here too.
- haswell 3y ago
  It’s unrelated in structured and substance to “too big to fail”. Too big to fail implies catastrophic harm worse than the (unpalatable) steps necessary to prop something up. This argument is really exploring the line between “company did something harmful” and “company did something so harmful they should no longer exist”. I’m not arguing for either, but TBTF is unrelated.
  - kevinventullo 3y ago
    I’m not sure I agree that the current argument is about whether the company did something so harmful they should no longer exist, but I agree that whatever it is, it is not the same as TBTF.
    - haswell 3y ago
      This was in response to a comment up the chain exploring the premise: > Given that scenario, does the ethical math really work for ACME to be completely destroyed? I agree that the broader conversation is not just about ceasing to exist, but this was the context of my comment.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
>Imagine further that ACME's other products have dramatically improved the lives of hundreds of millions of other people. ACME has already been compensated financially for their products, so I don't think we should count them again in the ethical calculus.
pessimizer 3y ago
This isn't a real argument, it's a digression. It's like not taking down a criminal mafia because the income of the enterprise goes to take care of at least 10x as many children, wives, dogs and cats than people who were actively committing the crimes. It's like not ordering the the proceeds of a crime be returned to the victims because the house the thief purchased with them is so beautiful, and the thief's daughter so well-behaved.
mehlmao 3y ago
The rights to ACME's products (and equipment to manufacture them) will be sold in bankruptcy to other companies that didn't give people cancer. These companies will continue to manufacture and sell them. As we all know capitalism is the most efficient economic system, those 100,000 hard working people will go work for other companies. I'm sure another company that knows its products contain asbestos would love to hire the legal and PR team that has experience in suing scientists who link products to cancer.
michaelt 3y ago
> Imagine that ten people in a giant company called ACME made some decisions that led to 50,000 people getting hurt. ACME also employs 100,000 hard working people, representing perhaps 0.3-0.4 million family members dependent upon that income. I employ thousands of men, women and children in my mines, many in the poorest and most conflict-ridden parts of the world. The gemstones we produce are some of the most highly valued products out there - what could produce more happiness than an engagement ring? And yet despite all the good I do, when I want to hunt and kill one or two human beings for sport, apparently it's still illegal. Even when I offered to use people who were terminally ill anyway, and I offered to compensate their families appropriately. I can only hope that in the future, our political leadership will be more rational and less emotional about these things /s
kevinventullo 3y ago
The market will recreate those jobs as competitors rush in to fill the gaps left by J&J, including both employment and the value of their products. By not destroying the company, you are giving all sufficiently large future companies carte blanche to break all the consumer protection laws they want, and you are rewarding investors for those companies. The long term moral hazard isn’t worth it; the investors and decision makers absolutely need to be wiped out.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> does the ethical math really work for ACME to be completely destroyed? The same ethical math tells us we should never imprison parents of young children for smaller crimes, like stealing, because it will harm wellfare of the child. And yet we do it anyway. > Destroying ACME entirely By carpet bombing? Sure. But we do not blow up the factories and we don't neurolise employees. The factories will be bought by a competitor, the employees will work for a competitor or start their own business. Nothing physical is "Destroyed" in the real world

tempest_ 3y ago

Reads like a "too big to fail" argument. It works for the banking industry I guess so why not here too.

haswell 3y ago
It’s unrelated in structured and substance to “too big to fail”. Too big to fail implies catastrophic harm worse than the (unpalatable) steps necessary to prop something up. This argument is really exploring the line between “company did something harmful” and “company did something so harmful they should no longer exist”. I’m not arguing for either, but TBTF is unrelated.
- kevinventullo 3y ago
  I’m not sure I agree that the current argument is about whether the company did something so harmful they should no longer exist, but I agree that whatever it is, it is not the same as TBTF.
  - haswell 3y ago
    This was in response to a comment up the chain exploring the premise: > Given that scenario, does the ethical math really work for ACME to be completely destroyed? I agree that the broader conversation is not just about ceasing to exist, but this was the context of my comment.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ToValueFunfetti 3y ago

>Imagine further that ACME's other products have dramatically improved the lives of hundreds of millions of other people. ACME has already been compensated financially for their products, so I don't think we should count them again in the ethical calculus.

pessimizer 3y ago

This isn't a real argument, it's a digression. It's like not taking down a criminal mafia because the income of the enterprise goes to take care of at least 10x as many children, wives, dogs and cats than people who were actively committing the crimes. It's like not ordering the the proceeds of a crime be returned to the victims because the house the thief purchased with them is so beautiful, and the thief's daughter so well-behaved.

mehlmao 3y ago

The rights to ACME's products (and equipment to manufacture them) will be sold in bankruptcy to other companies that didn't give people cancer. These companies will continue to manufacture and sell them. As we all know capitalism is the most efficient economic system, those 100,000 hard working people will go work for other companies. I'm sure another company that knows its products contain asbestos would love to hire the legal and PR team that has experience in suing scientists who link products to cancer.

michaelt 3y ago

> Imagine that ten people in a giant company called ACME made some decisions that led to 50,000 people getting hurt. ACME also employs 100,000 hard working people, representing perhaps 0.3-0.4 million family members dependent upon that income. I employ thousands of men, women and children in my mines, many in the poorest and most conflict-ridden parts of the world. The gemstones we produce are some of the most highly valued products out there - what could produce more happiness than an engagement ring? And yet despite all the good I do, when I want to hunt and kill one or two human beings for sport, apparently it's still illegal. Even when I offered to use people who were terminally ill anyway, and I offered to compensate their families appropriately. I can only hope that in the future, our political leadership will be more rational and less emotional about these things /s

kevinventullo 3y ago

The market will recreate those jobs as competitors rush in to fill the gaps left by J&J, including both employment and the value of their products. By not destroying the company, you are giving all sufficiently large future companies carte blanche to break all the consumer protection laws they want, and you are rewarding investors for those companies. The long term moral hazard isn’t worth it; the investors and decision makers absolutely need to be wiped out.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> does the ethical math really work for ACME to be completely destroyed? The same ethical math tells us we should never imprison parents of young children for smaller crimes, like stealing, because it will harm wellfare of the child. And yet we do it anyway. > Destroying ACME entirely By carpet bombing? Sure. But we do not blow up the factories and we don't neurolise employees. The factories will be bought by a competitor, the employees will work for a competitor or start their own business. Nothing physical is "Destroyed" in the real world