3 ms·

jakarta, I'd also ask you to consider what your words imply. You suggest that medical innovations need to be "held to a higher standard". Does jail time actuall

jakarta, I'd also ask you to consider what your words imply. You suggest that medical innovations need to be "held to a higher standard". Does jail time actually constitute a higher standard? In the US, the FDA has a long and complicated process through which most medical innovations need to go before becoming approved. Would it make sense to to have an entrepreneur go through that process, win approval, and then face jail time if something goes wrong? And, I'll repeat, outright fraud is not under discussion here, as fraud has always been illegal. I think your reasoning could be reversed - medical treatments are special because they save people's lives, therefore the entrepreneurs in this field should be given special consideration. Are we, as a society, willing to tolerate the failures so as to get the big breakthroughs? I offer this hypothetical as a thought experiment: 1.) Many lives might be saved by a reliable treatment for cancer. 2.) The threat of jail time will slow innovation in the medical field. 3.) Therefore the threat of jail time is causing people to die.

pyre 17y ago
I offer a counter-'thought experiment': 1.) Gun manufacturers make guns 2.) Guns kill people 3.) Therefore gun manufacturers are causing people to die. 1.) Managers impose deadlines and put pressure on employees to meet them 2.) Employees do sub-standard work to meet deadlines 3.) Sub-standard components cause deaths 4.) Therefore managers cause deaths
- kiba 17y ago
  Surely, you realize the method of murder will be accomplished by stabbing in place of a gun? There are many dangerous implement in the kitchen, for example. I would argue that people kill people, rather than guns.
- lkrubner 17y ago
  pyre, why do you suggest that managers cause deaths? The #4 in your second thought experiment doesn't make any sense. It would make more sense to write: 1.) Managers impose deadlines and put pressure on employees to meet them 2.) Employees do sub-standard work to meet deadlines 3.) Sub-standard components cause deaths 4.) Therefore employees doing sub-standard work kill people That would be an argument to jail all the workers at companies whose products do harm. Or you could write: 1.) Companies exist to make profits 2.) The profit motive encourages some companies to cut corners 3.) Cutting corners sometimes leads to death 4.) Therefore, the profit motive causes deaths That would be an argument to get rid of the profit motive, but it wouldn't be an argument to increase punishments over whatever base line of punishments already exist. Or how about: 1.) The law holds corporate executives responsible for the financial performance of their companies. 2.) The profit motive encourages some companies to cut corners. 3.) Cutting corners leads to situations where people die. 4.) Therefore the law is causing people's deaths. That would be an argument for punishing those who create the laws, rather than those who obey them. Or what if we take this logic to its extreme? 1.) The people of a democracy elect representatives to create laws. 2.) The law holds corporate executives responsible for the financial performance of their companies. 3.) The profit motive encourages some companies to cut corners. 4.) Cutting corners leads to situations where people die. 5.) Therefore the people who elected the representatives who created the laws are causing people's deaths. In this last scenario, all of the people in the nation deserve to be punished.

pyre 17y ago

I offer a counter-'thought experiment': 1.) Gun manufacturers make guns 2.) Guns kill people 3.) Therefore gun manufacturers are causing people to die. 1.) Managers impose deadlines and put pressure on employees to meet them 2.) Employees do sub-standard work to meet deadlines 3.) Sub-standard components cause deaths 4.) Therefore managers cause deaths

kiba 17y ago
Surely, you realize the method of murder will be accomplished by stabbing in place of a gun? There are many dangerous implement in the kitchen, for example. I would argue that people kill people, rather than guns.
lkrubner 17y ago
pyre, why do you suggest that managers cause deaths? The #4 in your second thought experiment doesn't make any sense. It would make more sense to write: 1.) Managers impose deadlines and put pressure on employees to meet them 2.) Employees do sub-standard work to meet deadlines 3.) Sub-standard components cause deaths 4.) Therefore employees doing sub-standard work kill people That would be an argument to jail all the workers at companies whose products do harm. Or you could write: 1.) Companies exist to make profits 2.) The profit motive encourages some companies to cut corners 3.) Cutting corners sometimes leads to death 4.) Therefore, the profit motive causes deaths That would be an argument to get rid of the profit motive, but it wouldn't be an argument to increase punishments over whatever base line of punishments already exist. Or how about: 1.) The law holds corporate executives responsible for the financial performance of their companies. 2.) The profit motive encourages some companies to cut corners. 3.) Cutting corners leads to situations where people die. 4.) Therefore the law is causing people's deaths. That would be an argument for punishing those who create the laws, rather than those who obey them. Or what if we take this logic to its extreme? 1.) The people of a democracy elect representatives to create laws. 2.) The law holds corporate executives responsible for the financial performance of their companies. 3.) The profit motive encourages some companies to cut corners. 4.) Cutting corners leads to situations where people die. 5.) Therefore the people who elected the representatives who created the laws are causing people's deaths. In this last scenario, all of the people in the nation deserve to be punished.