3 ms·

The only potential crime that article lists is allegation that the murder victim failed to disclose some material fact to the company investors. Are you saying

• impossiblefork 2y ago
  Yes, but if there were a crime, then there'd be a legal remedy, so any vigilante action would be unjustified. That something harmful is legal or effectively legal is a necessary requirement for a vigilante action to morally acceptable.
  • davrosthedalek 2y ago
    Wouldn't the moral acceptable way be to try making the harmful thing illegal? And if people in their majority, in their stupidity or cleverness, reject your argument, isn't then vigilante action deeply anti-democratic?
    • impossiblefork 2y ago
      I suppose it depends on how you view things and what tradition you're from. I have a very old-style view, where courts provide systems that substitute for private vengeance and thus become legitimate by being willing to hear complaints of harm, so from my point of view, if a court hear the matter, the affected person can take whatever measures they wish, which of course has important consequences in cases of legal immunity-- when my view is taken, legal immunity is something one desperately wants to avoid having, because whoever has it must contend with private vengeance.
• ruthmarx 2y ago
  > People hate CEOs of companies that must make difficult decision, No, People hate CEO's making greedy, selfish, unnecessary decisions that cost lives and cause suffering. Be honest.
  • xyzzyz 2y ago
    Again, you exemplify the exact attitude I describe. Can you point to any single decision that Thompson made that cost live and causes suffering? You can’t, but you assume there must have been some, because you start with assumption that the victim here is guilty, and only then try to find reasons why.
    • ruthmarx 2y ago
      > Again, you exemplify the exact attitude I describe. That's fine. I think you exemplify the attitude that lead to Thompson's murder and will lead to many more similar incidents. > Can you point to any single decision that Thompson made that cost live and causes suffering? You can’t, but you assume there must have been some, If denials tripled under his watch, as CEO you don't think he necessarily was involved in that? He clearly approved of profiting off of literal unnecessary deaths. > because you start with assumption that the victim here is guilty The most basic of reasoning shows he has some moral guilt, just not legal guilt. P1 - He was the head decision maker P2 - Decision was made to actively increase unnecessary deaths for monetary gain C - He ultimately approved of that decision
      • xyzzyz 2y ago
        If denials tripled under his watch, as CEO you don't think he necessarily was involved in that? He clearly approved of profiting off of literal unnecessary deaths. You have yet to show that tripling denials of a particular category of claims is even wrong in the first place. Let me repeat: any system will deny some claims, so denied claims are not prima facie evidence of anything wrong. Decision was made to actively increase unnecessary deaths for monetary gain Nobody had shown any evidence whatsoever that anything like that happened. Not only are denied claims not automatically wrong, but also changes in denial rate do not even need to correspond to any decision or change in policy, but may instead result from changes of external factors. He ultimately approved of that decision What decision? You just assume that there had been some decision, that Bryan Thompson approved, and that it was nefarious. There is as of now zero evidence for this, this is just your speculation. Murdering people based on speculations like that is profoundly evil, and so is excusing it.