4 ms·

Responsibility for the actions of a company should be somewhat proportional to the amount of profit derived from said activities.

IncreasePosts 2y ago
[flagged]
- uoaei 2y ago
  It's okay if you are uncomfortable in morally ambiguous situations, the most moral thing to do in those circumstances is recuse yourself.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    [flagged]
- dwallin 2y ago
  I would seriously wonder how much you understand about proportions given the average nurse makes about 00.000002% of the $4.5 trillion in annual health care spending in the USA. I also didn't say that should be the only factor. Clearly proximate responsibility for the relevant decisions should be (and already is) part of the equation.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    [flagged]
ARandomerDude 2y ago
So if you kill people but you only make $30K a year then no big deal. But if they 100x your salary now you're a real bad guy. That can't be right.
- capybaraStorm 2y ago
  While I have trouble wrestling with the assertion as well, it does hold pretty true to the way the US justice system works. Sentencing is generally far harsher for financial crimes as $ goes up. In stuff like drug crimes, US even has the death penalty as sanctioned remedy for quantities and enterprises of sufficient organization for mega profits. The thought process seems to be if you provide bad health care in the form of selling illegal drugs, at some level the death penalty is on the table.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >While I have trouble wrestling with the assertion as well, it does hold pretty true to the way the US justice system works. Sentencing is generally far harsher for financial crimes as $ goes up. Right, but only for financial crimes. You're not going to get off murder by saying you only got $100 for the hit.
    - capybaraStorm 2y ago
      If you sell a few hits of fentanyl you aren't going to meet the statutory definition of a criminal enterprise and therefore will not be eligible for federal death penalty even though fentanyl induces death. If you sell $100M of fentanyl you can get the death sentence, since fentanyl is an element in inducing death at basically any sufficiently large quantity of a criminal enterprise. It is not exactly the same, but it has a lot of parallels to the argument I see here. If you are an insurance salesman selling contracts you know will not be honored and such denied claims will be an element of death, many will not see it as serious as being the criminal enterprise leader who orchestrated it. Even in such case that the policy can be attributed to a single salesman, the executive is likely to be held more culpable just as the US code holds the criminal enterprise executive to the death penalty whereas it may not hold the low level guy who sold the fentanyl.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Drug dealing isnt a financial crime

IncreasePosts 2y ago

[flagged]

uoaei 2y ago
It's okay if you are uncomfortable in morally ambiguous situations, the most moral thing to do in those circumstances is recuse yourself.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  [flagged]
dwallin 2y ago
I would seriously wonder how much you understand about proportions given the average nurse makes about 00.000002% of the $4.5 trillion in annual health care spending in the USA. I also didn't say that should be the only factor. Clearly proximate responsibility for the relevant decisions should be (and already is) part of the equation.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  [flagged]

ARandomerDude 2y ago

So if you kill people but you only make $30K a year then no big deal. But if they 100x your salary now you're a real bad guy. That can't be right.

capybaraStorm 2y ago
While I have trouble wrestling with the assertion as well, it does hold pretty true to the way the US justice system works. Sentencing is generally far harsher for financial crimes as $ goes up. In stuff like drug crimes, US even has the death penalty as sanctioned remedy for quantities and enterprises of sufficient organization for mega profits. The thought process seems to be if you provide bad health care in the form of selling illegal drugs, at some level the death penalty is on the table.
- gruez 2y ago
  >While I have trouble wrestling with the assertion as well, it does hold pretty true to the way the US justice system works. Sentencing is generally far harsher for financial crimes as $ goes up. Right, but only for financial crimes. You're not going to get off murder by saying you only got $100 for the hit.
  - capybaraStorm 2y ago
    If you sell a few hits of fentanyl you aren't going to meet the statutory definition of a criminal enterprise and therefore will not be eligible for federal death penalty even though fentanyl induces death. If you sell $100M of fentanyl you can get the death sentence, since fentanyl is an element in inducing death at basically any sufficiently large quantity of a criminal enterprise. It is not exactly the same, but it has a lot of parallels to the argument I see here. If you are an insurance salesman selling contracts you know will not be honored and such denied claims will be an element of death, many will not see it as serious as being the criminal enterprise leader who orchestrated it. Even in such case that the policy can be attributed to a single salesman, the executive is likely to be held more culpable just as the US code holds the criminal enterprise executive to the death penalty whereas it may not hold the low level guy who sold the fentanyl.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Drug dealing isnt a financial crime