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.) Ma

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.