3 ms·
> That's despicable. What's despicable? That people would operate in their own self-interest, without regard to potential harm that is not in any way their fau
by pessimizer 3y ago
> That's despicable.
What's despicable? That people would operate in their own self-interest, without regard to potential harm that is not in any way their fault coming to people they've never met? Or the "assumption" that people would behave that way?
If acknowledging how people normally behave, especially when there's no moral obligation for them to behave otherwise, seems despicable, a lot of reality will become unacknowledgeable.
Why would a claimant intentionally take a lower settlement to keep funds available for later claimants? They have as much obligation to do so as you do to give up a portion of your paycheck to make sure claimants against J&J are paid out. Why would being the victim of crime specially obligate someone? Isn't that just a second victimization?
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> That people would operate in their own self-interest, without regard to potential harm that is not in any way their fault coming to people they've never met? We gave a name for that, it's calles psychopathy. "According to a study conducted by forensic psychologist Nathan Brooks from Bond University, around one in five corporate bosses have clinically significant psychopathic traits. This proportion is similar to that among prisoners. Journalist Jon Ronson found that CEOs are four times more likely to be psychopaths than the average person."