3 ms·

> Starting from secular first principles, what’s the argument that people shouldn’t be happy a wealthy CEO of a company that people perceive does a lot of harm

> Starting from secular first principles, what’s the argument that people shouldn’t be happy a wealthy CEO of a company that people perceive does a lot of harm This should not exist. We have government to look after the people, why do you have a CEO in this position in the first place? If a medical professional determines that the person needs attention, then the company should not deny it. It has been deemed necessary by medical professional. Secular is not the same as "always generating money", and if this is not a money making business them it should be covered by cooperatives. But that only would need to happen if your government is far too corrupt to do the correct thing and look after its people.

rayiner 2y ago
You’re punting on the actual question. No government will catch every bad company. What’s the morality of assassinating their CEOs? And you seem to be drawing a moral distinction between public and private sector that doesn’t make sense. In any system where you have a large number of people paying for the healthcare of a smaller number of people, you need someone to make decisions about what is covered and what isn’t. You’re simply advocating placing that decision making power in a different private actors: a doctor, who has his own interests and motivations. Doctors aren’t any more moral than anyone else. (We demonize the opioid companies, but hundreds of thousands of doctors prescribed those drugs, many receiving benefits to themselves for doing so.) Nobody gives doctors that much power over spending decisions, including in countries with socialized medicine. Those countries make coverage decision through bureaucratic processes just like private insurance companies do. But that’s raises an interesting point. There’s lots of public sector organizations that do tremendous harm through bad decisions. Many American urban school districts receive more funding than affluent suburban districts, but generate atrocious outcomes. They create a classroom to prison pipeline that chokes lives in the crib. What would secular morality say about assassinating their executives?

rayiner 2y ago

You’re punting on the actual question. No government will catch every bad company. What’s the morality of assassinating their CEOs? And you seem to be drawing a moral distinction between public and private sector that doesn’t make sense. In any system where you have a large number of people paying for the healthcare of a smaller number of people, you need someone to make decisions about what is covered and what isn’t. You’re simply advocating placing that decision making power in a different private actors: a doctor, who has his own interests and motivations. Doctors aren’t any more moral than anyone else. (We demonize the opioid companies, but hundreds of thousands of doctors prescribed those drugs, many receiving benefits to themselves for doing so.) Nobody gives doctors that much power over spending decisions, including in countries with socialized medicine. Those countries make coverage decision through bureaucratic processes just like private insurance companies do. But that’s raises an interesting point. There’s lots of public sector organizations that do tremendous harm through bad decisions. Many American urban school districts receive more funding than affluent suburban districts, but generate atrocious outcomes. They create a classroom to prison pipeline that chokes lives in the crib. What would secular morality say about assassinating their executives?