I'd add an utilitarian perspective: CEOs (and politicians) are people in a position of power that makes many of their decisions void of consequences for themselves, but when consequences unexpectedly do arrive, e.g. a vigilante murder, it may make them reconsider their actions, in particular it can be that many people's lives are improved because of this. Killing a CEO might have little to no effect on the overall system, but the limited impact may still be a net positive. For example, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield ended up going back on their decision to limit coverage on anesthesia shortly after the murder of UnitedHealthcare's CEO. It seems reasonable to think the aforementioned event is in huge part to thank for that.
But aren’t consequences highly unpredictable? How can one be certain of the effects their actions will lead to? Wouldn’t morally sound utilitarian vigilantism require certainty of the net positive effects before an action is done?
@yoshikagekira9698 when we consistently make consequences for corrupt people in positions of authority, i guarantee things will begin to change for the better.
Re 18:00 ish, as a philosophical anarchist my overall take here is not that every ordinary person should be free to do all of the things that we currently only let governments get away with doing, but rather that we shouldn't even let governments get away with doing so many things that we wouldn't let every ordinary person do. Retribution *isn't* moral, even if the state does it; there *are* high epistemic burdens to justify enacting even prevention or restitution, and no one institution (the state) should get to just declare that they have met them to their own satisfaction and nobody else gets to disagree; and so on. *Everyone* must have their power over anyone else properly limited and checked, and anarchy isn't about removing all checks and limits but about removing the one big exception to them: the state.
Relatedly, I think it's quite problematic that throughout this video you speak as though it's uncontroversially the case that if enough of the public support something then it is just, which completely ignores the possibility of the majority being morally wrong. Suppose for example that in some homophobic religious society that nevertheless has freedom of speech somehow, a public figure emerges that speaks legally about acceptance of homosexuality, and many young gay people listen to him and stop repressing themselves and come out and start living their true lives, and the state just lets him get away with it, which pisses someone off enough to go murder the speaker... and the bulk of society cheers him on. Does that last point make the murder actually just? I think clearly not.
@@Pfhorrestbut the corporations already limits your freedom. i get your point, but in this case corporations have all the power and even you could say that is working as part of the biggest capitalist state.
@@ewaldo1700 I’m not sure what your point is, I’m not defending corporations here (and yes like most anarchist I am also a socialist and think capitalism is just as much a problem as the state and the two are in fact inseparable).
@@Pfhorrest By what mechanisms "must" everyone have their power limited and checked? This channel did an *amazing* exploration of immoral democratic actions in the "Democracy and Development" series. I seriously cannot recommend it highly enough.
@@ItaiS-K That's a question too big for a RUclips comment and with many different proposed answers; all the different varieties of anarchism are proposing different ways to have stateless governance. I have one of my own, but again, just a RUclips comment. I can give you a hint though: stateless governance is like irreligious education, in that in both the closest thing to "authorities" are themselves always still questionable and their word isn't simply final. How are educational authorities limited and checked in their epistemic power? Perhaps we can apply analogous methods to governmental authorities and their deontic power.
It is harder to place blame on individual legislators since they need others to act, while a CEO has much less restrained authority. If you have one legislator who kills a bill, that would change things, it would be easier to blame them. However as noted in the video, political violence has even higher standards to meet, since attacking a politician is not just a crime against them, but a crime against their voters.
this is an interesting argument. Ultimately I agree that corporations have wreaked havoc upon us on all fronts. But very few are willing to act on this moral imperative, so can it really be described as such? By what standard is it morally necessary? Because most people seem to be completely content with the way things are
CEOs don't just make decisions on what coverage they provide. The coverage is outlined in the policy that is available when you subscribe to an insurance policy. It is legally binding. OFTEN (at the CEO's direction?), claims are denied for no apparent reason. You can call and argue and they may have inane arguments about fine print in the pollicy. But it often comes down where they will cover you after repeatedly arguing. The only reason they deny is to not pay out what they are legally obligated to under the policy. I'm surprised more CEOs aren't found guilty of murder in such circumstances.
Now, that the shooter is most likely in custody, the next practical dilemma is how to establish a jury of his peers, that isn't biased. Does it make the jury more biased or more unbiased, if it only consists of people, that are either healthy or wealthy enough to neither have encountered abusive health insurance practices personally themselves or within the first degree of their family/social group?
@Joe-sg9ll yes. If i were on the jury I'd vote to acquit. 1. Because justice was served, the CEO is responsible for many many more deaths than the defendant is but he'll never be held accountable because he never technically broke any laws. Doesnt mean he's not guilty of a moral crime. 2. The defendant is not a danger to society. That is what the law ostensibly exists for, not as a moral stick but to protect society from bad actors. And the CEO is clearly the bad actor in this case. Study the history of Labor rights and you'll see nothing changes unless blood is spilled. Before the labor movement of the late 19th century workers had no rights. And much blood was shed to get basic labor rights on the books. Do you think the owner is, the elite, the wealthy cared about their employees? Without the fear of consequences even "good" people would take advantage of others
@@JimmyMatis-h9yyou’re better than me. I’d vote to acquit him based on his political utility alone. I don’t agree with his actions. But I agree with what this could mean for a real leftist movement. They’ve already started using Daniel penny for their political goals of demonizing homeless and mentally ill people just like they did with rittenhouse. We need to bring that same energy. But I do agree that he’s not a persistent danger to the public and he was clearly suffering because of our healthcare system. I also agree with your analysis that nothing changes for working people unless there’s bloodshed. But When life gives you lemons
It remains to be seen if this guy will be nullified by a jury. I'm against the death penalty so I jumped off this moral mind game early. I think the perpetrator not only broke the law, but foolishly misdirected his anger toward this one man. He could have used his talent to work toward changing the system instead of choosing this tragic path. The best I can hope for is that the public correctly directs their anger toward changing the laws that (legally) permit companies to withhold coverage for medical care.
The "Will of the people" is not the same as "What will have the best outcome for the people". He might be convicted of murder and might still be morally justified that have enacted something that creates positive change. His actions might have a net positive for a self-destructive society. Only time will tell. This might cause a change in policies, etc and make people more aware of the type of social murder performed by the CEO.
Some thoughts on the analogy: I'd say that if a health insurer said something along the lines of "We assessed your probability of needing emergency care in the next 12 months to be 1%. Therefore we will cover up to the amount you will give us these 12 months * 90. If it were *100, our expected profit would be 0 dollars, so we are getting the remaining 10 as our cut." And then you end up needing the care, and your expenses exceed this pre-stated pre-agreed-upon hard limit. I don't think you would have any such grievance comparable to the parachute company that is giving non-functional emergency chute to earn more profit. It would be like if the parachute company said "Okay the emergency chute doesn't work this percent of the time from our testing, just as a heads up, buy it if you want"
Yes, I would say that there is a good argument that if the parachute company was transparent about its choice, it would then be the customer's responsibility to make a choice that suits them (though from a legal standpoint, the parachute seller can still be strictly liable for its design defect, even if it wasn't at fault ethically). With health insurance, it gets a bit more complicated because sometimes an employer is choosing on behalf of the customer, but there is still an argument that the customer can negotiate with their employer or find a new employer if they care so much about health insurance. If the healthcare company is denying claims in a way that violates the terms of the policy, there is an argument that the process of external appeals to independent third parties should sort this problem out, but there is also the argument that the delay in getting the money (if they ever do get it) causes some people to get less care, leading to negative outcomes.
Re 8:20 ish another important distinction between the speed limit scenario and the health insurance scenario, besides the one you lay out, is that in the speed limit scenario the government is not deciding how much of some good or service to *give* to people, but how much freedom to *take* from people, nominally for their own protection. ("Nominally" because there are complex profit motives for governmental agencies involved in how speed limits get set, *not* purely altruistic considerations for the safety of drivers.)
The give and take argument doesn't work very well, if you consider, that it is also the government that maintains the roads to a standard, that allows safely driving at a given speed. Public infrastructure is a public service, so your distinction, that the government "takes" something by deciding the rules how to use this infrastructure is hard to defend.
If we were talking about the government deciding not to build roads at all because driving is dangerous then that would be comparable, but providing that service isn’t inextricably tied to also controlling people’s behavior. In general, one who gives something to someone doesn’t usually then automatically get to dictate how they can use it (and I have quite an argument with the notion that anyone ever rightly can, which connects to why rent and therefore interest and with it all of capitalism is morally invalid).
Any obligation has potential costs. No one is getting any rights without people having costly obligations. It's always both give and take with rights, not one or the other.
We talk about the challenges of economists claiming all good can be identified with monetary value, including human life, in the book. It is a very interesting subject.
I feel that there is an underlying and overlooked question in this idea. Is it morally ok to invest in the stock market in the first place. I feel we tend to scapegoat the companies and CEO's of said companies while we turn a wilfully ignorant eye to the investors. Like it was stated in the video, "the CEO's job is to make the investors money." And the investors expect this to hold true year after year in this infinite money glitchy kind of way. If you only sell one product and do so with this much efficiency then there's only one way to increase profitability. So using the term one again is willful ignorance of investors to blame here or the companies and CEO's.
A lot of people participate in the stock market via retirement accounts. Unfortunately due to inflation it's not really feasible for most people to save for retirement in cash. However a tiny minority of wealthy people own the majority of stocks (and accordingly have influence over the companies they hold stock in) and certainly it's immoral to own enough stock that you earn the majority of your income this way
This is why I was conflicted about this whole thing. I wasn’t sure of the mangione’s motive, but people were holding him up as some symbol for change. I was confused because there is an entire incentive structure, like shareholders and our government, that permits the ceo and his company to deny care so it will ultimately change nothing. But using mangione to make change happen is possible I think
@@SparklyCoconut-le3fu Killing a CEO doesn't change anything in itself. I think it's very possible that this will be a catalyst for social change if 1. It helps working class people realize they have common interests that transcend the typical political divide, and 2. Said working class is able to realize their power to organize for change I think US culture loves retribution and that's why people feel the way they do, but people will have to wield that anger constructively and do unsexy organizing work in order to see real change
The question of whether there's a difference between K&LD is the wrong question to ask; the question is whether letting die is morally reprehensible. Maybe it's worse to KILL 1 person than the let 5 people die, which should inform my decision in Trolley cases. But normal cases of letting die are not trolley cases. Normally the question isn't K1 or LD5, it's LD1 or LD0. Think of Peter Singer's Shallow Pond case; I see a child drowning in a shallow pond and I face a choice - I can save their life w/o giving up anything significant, or I can just avoid the pond entirely to keep my pants free of mud. I can LD0... or I can LD1. Singer thinks we should save the drowning child; and this is regardless of whether there's a difference between K&LD.
Swap "vigilantism" for "terrorism" and the arguments still hold. In which case this video can be viewed as pre-terrorism. But it's philosophy so maybe it's OK.
Targeting an individual or a property doesn’t serve justice; it serves mass communication. It’s entirely irrelevant how good or bad this person was, because a predictable percentage would respond as he did to the incentives of his position. It does little for a better person, or even the best person to succeed him. The position does the harm. And while neither of the parties who receiving donations from that position had much to say about it last month, and while they’ll do their best to hold that line even now, they can’t help but listen a little.
@ I don’t think I’ve expressed a generalizable moral position on that matter so I can’t expound upon one. It doesn’t even seem like a particularly interesting question. The T word is loaded so any attempt to answer would be nonsense within accepted language. ETA: I think I see the miscommunication. My statement that it doesn’t serve justice is not to say the act was particularly unjust but that justice is irrelevant or uninteresting. I thought this was obvious from the class analysis later in the paragraph.
9:00 A CEO's job is not to maximize money for the shareholders. Consider Thrasymachus' account of Justice, where Justice is what's in the interest of the strong. Socrates argues that the telos of a craft (or profession for our purposes) cannot be to vacuously benefit the craftsman, but to benefit the objects of the craft. Justice benefits the ruled, not the ruler. Insurance, then, must benefit the insured, not the insurer by the same token. If the telos of insurance was to benefit the insurer then no one would buy insurance just like if the telos of auto mechanics was to benefit the auto mechanic by breaking cars so people had to come in for service more often, making them more money.
1. A CEO's literal sole job is to maximize profits. A central tenet of strategic management is that a corporate director is beholden to its shareholders. 2. In theory, insurance must benefit the insurer. But when the insurer is run like a private entity, it is accountable to its shareholders who are not the insured. That's why Carneades makes this comparison between public vs private insurance. Where the insurance is public, the capital is derived from the public, who are the insured and thus also the shareholders. This makes a public insurer beholden to its shareholders who are also its customers. The main reason why public insurance is better than private insurance. For a public insurer to change direction on a strategic decision, it needs public approval, which essentially helps them wash their hands of any moral repercussions if the decision ends up backfiring.
the trolley problem is a problem that's not being solved by any means and doesn't have an option to be solved by any means by a person not dying it's a trap
I find a bias of reasoning regarding the choices a CEO will make. For example if paying for all life saving treatments makes the premium beyond the reach of people who may need such treatment, is the CEO also killing those people by denying them affordable. insurance that save many people? This is analogous to the trolley problem. What is the proper level of care owed insureds? (this gets discussed at 24:56) If the chance of saving the life of a newborn baby is infinitesimal but non-zero, is the insurance company responsible for the baby's death even though the cost of coverage would bankrupt the company? Or for an elderly person. with a deadly disease who could gain a few years of life for treatment that would also bankrupt the company, are they killing the old person by denying them that care? This vlog is very unsatisfying for taking such a strong position against the insurers without considering the other nuances of the case. The fundamental motivations of profit seeking does create rent seeking and choices based on profitability. Would it be better if the company were a mutual and the policy holders were also shareholders? Or if it were a single payer administered by a government agency? At some point the argument must face the fact that we do not have unlimited funds for every possible lifesaving procedure. (RE: legal but immoral, there is the fact that insurance is governed by contracts and if they violate their obligations under the contract, they become culpable and must recompense the injured parties.) And of course since the recent news includes the acquittal of the subway killer's vigilantism/good Samaritan action, there was another good case study to look at. And the difference between justice and vengeance was left undiscussed. (Agamemnon)
The company would have to be non-profit and lacked the necessary resources or for-profit and turning no profit before we could make a reasonable argument that premiums needed to go up to increase treatments. In reality this company is incredibly profitable.
A bit offtopic, but any sufficiently powerful individual makes life and death decisions on the daily. Any powerful enough individual will make mistakes that will kill people on the daily because they didnt take the optimal action. What to do about it?
on the fact of getting a cheaper parachute that has a higher mortality rate death rate than the other that's more expensive and you go with the cheaper one are you liable for someone's death because of that. you would be if you did not disclaim those facts to the people before they buy that product. if you do tell them the facts of the matter they would be the ones that fought and not the distributor because the distributor was straight up and told them hey this has more fatality rate than this one but this is the one we got and then it's up to you whether or not you want to buy it and risk your life to do so. notice most of these questions are in the hypothetical paradox range they're not giving any of the other option which is the other option that stops them from being liable for a person buying their product and dying from it because they were fully informed of the situation. if you fully inform someone about the situation the product and the risk. you are not reliable for them buying it and using it anyways they are.because you have given all the information therefore the option of whether or not they want to risk their lives is up to them because they know only if you do not tell them would it be your fault.
it has to be consensual agreement. of the governed. not a forced one not one where you don't have a choice and then they say you can centrally consented because they lied to you and told you you had to do this stuff when you didn't that's not consensual. and then on top of that the laws have to be consensually agreed upon between the two parties not just one of them being forced onto the other that's awful not a consensual agreement. so no the state has no right to do so. because it's not a consensual agreement in the first place
if they can be proven inside a courtroom that they're guilty then they can be proven outside of courtroom that they can be guilty with the same evidence. you don't need a judge in a courtroom for that. like I said before look at how many have been found guilty have been murdered by putting them to death or literally wasted their lives in jail locked up for 40 years or so or more and then found innocent under the Court's jurisdiction. again your theory of the no courtroom conviction to one that has a courtroom conviction if it's just it's just if it's not it's not and you don't need a courtroom for any of it
I think that the premise is sort of wrong. Because killing someone can never be morally good. It can however be morally right when there is no other choice, or the victim is given no other choice. All human beings have a right to resist, and a right to defend themselves and others from harm, even from governments. Especially when government actors are acting as private persons because they act outside of their mandate, or ignore the rules of their mandate. What about cases where the power differences are so great that the weaker victim has no other way to stop someone from committing crimes in the future? It might be the only way to prevent future violations.
Aren't the stockholders people resposible for the denials of coverage instead of the CEO? If the CEO made his choices based on ethics instead of profit stockholders would change the CEO to one that considered profit only. Maybe both are resposible, i the this view as preatty reasonable. putting the guilt exclusively on the CEO seems wrong.
hey since you bring up arendt! can you answer if you think that she was a liberal? bc i think she is not...although freedom was one of her primary ideals.... she was not the same as an elightenment thinker on how she approaches it; same with the unabomber; i dont think he was a liberal either, bc there are many other ways to philosophize freedom....i just had a debate with someone online who says that according to right wing thought, there is only one kind of philos of freedom, and that is to be labeled a liberal! i was like... i just read Arendt on this...and i relistened to the audiobook of the unabomber manifesto...and even tho he goes to great lenghts to also be against the left...this person also thought that it was inevitable that his manifesto would lead to all the leftist identity politics... i was like, no wonder no one can have a conversation these days....cant even agree on basic terms
if you are in a situation where you are working for a healthcare organization and they are purposely 9 people unethically an unjustifiably denying people and letting them die. and you representing them working for them and you don't speak out and say something to try and do something about it or decide to stay quiet and keep working for them you are part of them therefore everyone that is a part of it is involved the getaway driver didn't go in and shoot the man behind the counter but isn't he liable for that murder too? people you have to get away from these ideas of thought experiments they are thought experiments is in hypothetical to non-realistic situations that they try and make unsolvable which in reality is not the case and mostly everything and only give you certain options. like Schrodinger's cat here's one is The cat in The box dead because a poison or is it not well you won't know until you open the box and observe it that's not true not true at all you can listen you can wait and see if the cat tries to get out you can do all kinds of things other than looking at that cat is still alive or not one would be the smell of a decaying body which you don't even have to watch the box for so you don't even have to look at the box to know whether or not the cat would be dead or not if the cat was dead in the box if it was a fresh kill you wouldn't be able to smell it right away but you'd be able to know that that cat's making no noise not trying to get out not doing anything so you know that that cat is dead in there like here's another one.now we all know that if we're in an area where a tree falls we can hear that tree fall within a certain area radius. but if you're not there and that tree falls does it still make a sound? but yes yes it does we know this because we've been around and it makes sounds when it breaks and falls to the ground so even if we're not there that sound is still personing from that truck falling tree stupid right these are literally easier than s*** questions to answer in real reality when you put two and two together so let's get away from this paradoxical s*** it's just something to confuse people that's all it is it's a thought experiments are to get you to think in different ways and certain ideologies from one to another so you're not just thinking in one certain form and you're trying to think in multiple forms at one time that's all these are they're not anything to put reality to the actual test which people have been doing ignorantly for who knows how long
if I just to play taking actions in your own hands has a vigilante is somehow not right then how come the government can declare martial law. that is literally vigilante law right there. so there goes your whole theory on that right there narrator.
putting people at risk for them to die without them knowing it by cutting the emergency cord. if they have to pull that emergency cord that you have cut purposely you have killed them because you are the one that purposely cut the cord that would have could have saved their life I wouldn't say would because they could fail two by itself. so yes you would be at fault because you are the one that cut their emergency cord and did not tell them and they needed that emergency cord whether or not you thought they might need it or not. putting people's lives at risk without without them knowing about it and agreeing to it themselves is your liability now if you disclaim all the disclaimers and tell them hey I cut these emergency chords I don't think you're going to need them but you could need them and give them the choice of whether or not they want to risk their lives on if they have to pull that emergency coordinate not actually being able to work then that is their problem they're the ones that decided that not you. big difference
when that due process is not justly submittable to all under everyone's agreement in general agreement then it is not just and therefore the government is not just the government doesn't follow our Constitution say in America therefore it is not just they rule us under maritime law. that's a jurisdiction of the sea and overseas trade with foreign governments. we're not under our Constitution which is the jurisdiction of limited government that we the people give them. and then state government which is in cahoots with the federal government which is supposed to also be limited bought in cahoots with the federal government they are not. we get taxed by both under two different constitutions even though they rule us under Maritime lawn that are court system in the whole bar association is under is that justified their people are we supposed to be free or born property of the government. do you think you're free here in America.? let me know cuz if you do I can prove you wrong!
I'd add an utilitarian perspective: CEOs (and politicians) are people in a position of power that makes many of their decisions void of consequences for themselves, but when consequences unexpectedly do arrive, e.g. a vigilante murder, it may make them reconsider their actions, in particular it can be that many people's lives are improved because of this. Killing a CEO might have little to no effect on the overall system, but the limited impact may still be a net positive. For example, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield ended up going back on their decision to limit coverage on anesthesia shortly after the murder of UnitedHealthcare's CEO. It seems reasonable to think the aforementioned event is in huge part to thank for that.
coverage on anesthesia... i feel like im in a horrible sci fi novel 😢 omg
But aren’t consequences highly unpredictable? How can one be certain of the effects their actions will lead to? Wouldn’t morally sound utilitarian vigilantism require certainty of the net positive effects before an action is done?
@yoshikagekira9698 when we consistently make consequences for corrupt people in positions of authority, i guarantee things will begin to change for the better.
Nonviolence only works when your oppressors have a conscience
Nonviolence was a short-lived outcome of mass communication. It took a little time, but the powerful got a handle on that nuisance.
Luigi just pulled he trolley lever.
Re 18:00 ish, as a philosophical anarchist my overall take here is not that every ordinary person should be free to do all of the things that we currently only let governments get away with doing, but rather that we shouldn't even let governments get away with doing so many things that we wouldn't let every ordinary person do. Retribution *isn't* moral, even if the state does it; there *are* high epistemic burdens to justify enacting even prevention or restitution, and no one institution (the state) should get to just declare that they have met them to their own satisfaction and nobody else gets to disagree; and so on. *Everyone* must have their power over anyone else properly limited and checked, and anarchy isn't about removing all checks and limits but about removing the one big exception to them: the state.
Relatedly, I think it's quite problematic that throughout this video you speak as though it's uncontroversially the case that if enough of the public support something then it is just, which completely ignores the possibility of the majority being morally wrong. Suppose for example that in some homophobic religious society that nevertheless has freedom of speech somehow, a public figure emerges that speaks legally about acceptance of homosexuality, and many young gay people listen to him and stop repressing themselves and come out and start living their true lives, and the state just lets him get away with it, which pisses someone off enough to go murder the speaker... and the bulk of society cheers him on. Does that last point make the murder actually just? I think clearly not.
@@Pfhorrestbut the corporations already limits your freedom. i get your point, but in this case corporations have all the power and even you could say that is working as part of the biggest capitalist state.
@@ewaldo1700 I’m not sure what your point is, I’m not defending corporations here (and yes like most anarchist I am also a socialist and think capitalism is just as much a problem as the state and the two are in fact inseparable).
@@Pfhorrest By what mechanisms "must" everyone have their power limited and checked?
This channel did an *amazing* exploration of immoral democratic actions in the "Democracy and Development" series.
I seriously cannot recommend it highly enough.
@@ItaiS-K That's a question too big for a RUclips comment and with many different proposed answers; all the different varieties of anarchism are proposing different ways to have stateless governance. I have one of my own, but again, just a RUclips comment. I can give you a hint though: stateless governance is like irreligious education, in that in both the closest thing to "authorities" are themselves always still questionable and their word isn't simply final. How are educational authorities limited and checked in their epistemic power? Perhaps we can apply analogous methods to governmental authorities and their deontic power.
people in governments haven't given up their rights to anything they're forced to there's a difference
What about the legislators who let the insurance companies deploy such practices?
It is harder to place blame on individual legislators since they need others to act, while a CEO has much less restrained authority. If you have one legislator who kills a bill, that would change things, it would be easier to blame them.
However as noted in the video, political violence has even higher standards to meet, since attacking a politician is not just a crime against them, but a crime against their voters.
Vigilantism is a moral imperative when the CEOs have bought immunity from consequences for their greed.
this is an interesting argument. Ultimately I agree that corporations have wreaked havoc upon us on all fronts. But very few are willing to act on this moral imperative, so can it really be described as such? By what standard is it morally necessary? Because most people seem to be completely content with the way things are
CEOs don't just make decisions on what coverage they provide. The coverage is outlined in the policy that is available when you subscribe to an insurance policy. It is legally binding. OFTEN (at the CEO's direction?), claims are denied for no apparent reason. You can call and argue and they may have inane arguments about fine print in the pollicy. But it often comes down where they will cover you after repeatedly arguing. The only reason they deny is to not pay out what they are legally obligated to under the policy. I'm surprised more CEOs aren't found guilty of murder in such circumstances.
As an insurance adjuster, I can assure you interpreting policy and applying coverage is VERY subjective.
capitalism is the killer' that is why the parallel to the unabomber makes sense... the system itself....
Oh Yeah those horrible Aztecs were really proto capitalists...
Now, that the shooter is most likely in custody, the next practical dilemma is how to establish a jury of his peers, that isn't biased. Does it make the jury more biased or more unbiased, if it only consists of people, that are either healthy or wealthy enough to neither have encountered abusive health insurance practices personally themselves or within the first degree of their family/social group?
@Joe-sg9ll yes.
If i were on the jury I'd vote to acquit.
1. Because justice was served, the CEO is responsible for many many more deaths than the defendant is but he'll never be held accountable because he never technically broke any laws. Doesnt mean he's not guilty of a moral crime.
2. The defendant is not a danger to society. That is what the law ostensibly exists for, not as a moral stick but to protect society from bad actors.
And the CEO is clearly the bad actor in this case.
Study the history of Labor rights and you'll see nothing changes unless blood is spilled. Before the labor movement of the late 19th century workers had no rights. And much blood was shed to get basic labor rights on the books. Do you think the owner is, the elite, the wealthy cared about their employees?
Without the fear of consequences even "good" people would take advantage of others
@@JimmyMatis-h9yyou’re better than me. I’d vote to acquit him based on his political utility alone. I don’t agree with his actions. But I agree with what this could mean for a real leftist movement. They’ve already started using Daniel penny for their political goals of demonizing homeless and mentally ill people just like they did with rittenhouse. We need to bring that same energy. But I do agree that he’s not a persistent danger to the public and he was clearly suffering because of our healthcare system. I also agree with your analysis that nothing changes for working people unless there’s bloodshed. But When life gives you lemons
looks like the us is ready to bust at the seams....the anger and frustration is right there...
It remains to be seen if this guy will be nullified by a jury. I'm against the death penalty so I jumped off this moral mind game early. I think the perpetrator not only broke the law, but foolishly misdirected his anger toward this one man. He could have used his talent to work toward changing the system instead of choosing this tragic path. The best I can hope for is that the public correctly directs their anger toward changing the laws that (legally) permit companies to withhold coverage for medical care.
Small correction, it's Hannah *Arendt,* not Ardent
The "Will of the people" is not the same as "What will have the best outcome for the people". He might be convicted of murder and might still be morally justified that have enacted something that creates positive change. His actions might have a net positive for a self-destructive society. Only time will tell.
This might cause a change in policies, etc and make people more aware of the type of social murder performed by the CEO.
Some thoughts on the analogy:
I'd say that if a health insurer said something along the lines of "We assessed your probability of needing emergency care in the next 12 months to be 1%. Therefore we will cover up to the amount you will give us these 12 months * 90. If it were *100, our expected profit would be 0 dollars, so we are getting the remaining 10 as our cut."
And then you end up needing the care, and your expenses exceed this pre-stated pre-agreed-upon hard limit. I don't think you would have any such grievance comparable to the parachute company that is giving non-functional emergency chute to earn more profit.
It would be like if the parachute company said "Okay the emergency chute doesn't work this percent of the time from our testing, just as a heads up, buy it if you want"
Yes, I would say that there is a good argument that if the parachute company was transparent about its choice, it would then be the customer's responsibility to make a choice that suits them (though from a legal standpoint, the parachute seller can still be strictly liable for its design defect, even if it wasn't at fault ethically). With health insurance, it gets a bit more complicated because sometimes an employer is choosing on behalf of the customer, but there is still an argument that the customer can negotiate with their employer or find a new employer if they care so much about health insurance. If the healthcare company is denying claims in a way that violates the terms of the policy, there is an argument that the process of external appeals to independent third parties should sort this problem out, but there is also the argument that the delay in getting the money (if they ever do get it) causes some people to get less care, leading to negative outcomes.
Re 8:20 ish another important distinction between the speed limit scenario and the health insurance scenario, besides the one you lay out, is that in the speed limit scenario the government is not deciding how much of some good or service to *give* to people, but how much freedom to *take* from people, nominally for their own protection. ("Nominally" because there are complex profit motives for governmental agencies involved in how speed limits get set, *not* purely altruistic considerations for the safety of drivers.)
The give and take argument doesn't work very well, if you consider, that it is also the government that maintains the roads to a standard, that allows safely driving at a given speed. Public infrastructure is a public service, so your distinction, that the government "takes" something by deciding the rules how to use this infrastructure is hard to defend.
If we were talking about the government deciding not to build roads at all because driving is dangerous then that would be comparable, but providing that service isn’t inextricably tied to also controlling people’s behavior. In general, one who gives something to someone doesn’t usually then automatically get to dictate how they can use it (and I have quite an argument with the notion that anyone ever rightly can, which connects to why rent and therefore interest and with it all of capitalism is morally invalid).
Any obligation has potential costs. No one is getting any rights without people having costly obligations. It's always both give and take with rights, not one or the other.
That maximizing shareholder value in lieu of all other values was formalized as "moral" by Milton Friedman, an economist popular on the right.
We talk about the challenges of economists claiming all good can be identified with monetary value, including human life, in the book. It is a very interesting subject.
Book?
I feel that there is an underlying and overlooked question in this idea. Is it morally ok to invest in the stock market in the first place. I feel we tend to scapegoat the companies and CEO's of said companies while we turn a wilfully ignorant eye to the investors. Like it was stated in the video, "the CEO's job is to make the investors money." And the investors expect this to hold true year after year in this infinite money glitchy kind of way. If you only sell one product and do so with this much efficiency then there's only one way to increase profitability. So using the term one again is willful ignorance of investors to blame here or the companies and CEO's.
I feel the same way. Is it even right to make money off of money, creating spurious infinities?
Thank you. I'm glad that I'm in good company in this thought.
A lot of people participate in the stock market via retirement accounts. Unfortunately due to inflation it's not really feasible for most people to save for retirement in cash. However a tiny minority of wealthy people own the majority of stocks (and accordingly have influence over the companies they hold stock in) and certainly it's immoral to own enough stock that you earn the majority of your income this way
This is why I was conflicted about this whole thing. I wasn’t sure of the mangione’s motive, but people were holding him up as some symbol for change. I was confused because there is an entire incentive structure, like shareholders and our government, that permits the ceo and his company to deny care so it will ultimately change nothing. But using mangione to make change happen is possible I think
@@SparklyCoconut-le3fu Killing a CEO doesn't change anything in itself. I think it's very possible that this will be a catalyst for social change if 1. It helps working class people realize they have common interests that transcend the typical political divide, and 2. Said working class is able to realize their power to organize for change
I think US culture loves retribution and that's why people feel the way they do, but people will have to wield that anger constructively and do unsexy organizing work in order to see real change
The question of whether there's a difference between K&LD is the wrong question to ask; the question is whether letting die is morally reprehensible. Maybe it's worse to KILL 1 person than the let 5 people die, which should inform my decision in Trolley cases. But normal cases of letting die are not trolley cases. Normally the question isn't K1 or LD5, it's LD1 or LD0. Think of Peter Singer's Shallow Pond case; I see a child drowning in a shallow pond and I face a choice - I can save their life w/o giving up anything significant, or I can just avoid the pond entirely to keep my pants free of mud. I can LD0... or I can LD1. Singer thinks we should save the drowning child; and this is regardless of whether there's a difference between K&LD.
Swap "vigilantism" for "terrorism" and the arguments still hold. In which case this video can be viewed as pre-terrorism. But it's philosophy so maybe it's OK.
Targeting an individual or a property doesn’t serve justice; it serves mass communication. It’s entirely irrelevant how good or bad this person was, because a predictable percentage would respond as he did to the incentives of his position. It does little for a better person, or even the best person to succeed him. The position does the harm. And while neither of the parties who receiving donations from that position had much to say about it last month, and while they’ll do their best to hold that line even now, they can’t help but listen a little.
Why should terrorism be morally incorrect 100% of the time?
@ I don’t think I’ve expressed a generalizable moral position on that matter so I can’t expound upon one. It doesn’t even seem like a particularly interesting question. The T word is loaded so any attempt to answer would be nonsense within accepted language.
ETA: I think I see the miscommunication. My statement that it doesn’t serve justice is not to say the act was particularly unjust but that justice is irrelevant or uninteresting. I thought this was obvious from the class analysis later in the paragraph.
I find it a little intellectually dishonest to equate having a "completely anarchic" society with having no punishment for any crime.
9:00 A CEO's job is not to maximize money for the shareholders. Consider Thrasymachus' account of Justice, where Justice is what's in the interest of the strong. Socrates argues that the telos of a craft (or profession for our purposes) cannot be to vacuously benefit the craftsman, but to benefit the objects of the craft. Justice benefits the ruled, not the ruler. Insurance, then, must benefit the insured, not the insurer by the same token. If the telos of insurance was to benefit the insurer then no one would buy insurance just like if the telos of auto mechanics was to benefit the auto mechanic by breaking cars so people had to come in for service more often, making them more money.
1. A CEO's literal sole job is to maximize profits. A central tenet of strategic management is that a corporate director is beholden to its shareholders.
2. In theory, insurance must benefit the insurer. But when the insurer is run like a private entity, it is accountable to its shareholders who are not the insured. That's why Carneades makes this comparison between public vs private insurance. Where the insurance is public, the capital is derived from the public, who are the insured and thus also the shareholders. This makes a public insurer beholden to its shareholders who are also its customers. The main reason why public insurance is better than private insurance. For a public insurer to change direction on a strategic decision, it needs public approval, which essentially helps them wash their hands of any moral repercussions if the decision ends up backfiring.
the trolley problem is a problem that's not being solved by any means and doesn't have an option to be solved by any means by a person not dying it's a trap
I find a bias of reasoning regarding the choices a CEO will make. For example if paying for all life saving treatments makes the premium beyond the reach of people who may need such treatment, is the CEO also killing those people by denying them affordable. insurance that save many people? This is analogous to the trolley problem. What is the proper level of care owed insureds? (this gets discussed at 24:56)
If the chance of saving the life of a newborn baby is infinitesimal but non-zero, is the insurance company responsible for the baby's death even though the cost of coverage would bankrupt the company? Or for an elderly person. with a deadly disease who could gain a few years of life for treatment that would also bankrupt the company, are they killing the old person by denying them that care?
This vlog is very unsatisfying for taking such a strong position against the insurers without considering the other nuances of the case. The fundamental motivations of profit seeking does create rent seeking and choices based on profitability. Would it be better if the company were a mutual and the policy holders were also shareholders? Or if it were a single payer administered by a government agency? At some point the argument must face the fact that we do not have unlimited funds for every possible lifesaving procedure. (RE: legal but immoral, there is the fact that insurance is governed by contracts and if they violate their obligations under the contract, they become culpable and must recompense the injured parties.)
And of course since the recent news includes the acquittal of the subway killer's vigilantism/good Samaritan action, there was another good case study to look at. And the difference between justice and vengeance was left undiscussed. (Agamemnon)
The company would have to be non-profit and lacked the necessary resources or for-profit and turning no profit before we could make a reasonable argument that premiums needed to go up to increase treatments. In reality this company is incredibly profitable.
Should we consume the art of persons that are morally bad? Do we in turn become bad people?
A bit offtopic, but any sufficiently powerful individual makes life and death decisions on the daily.
Any powerful enough individual will make mistakes that will kill people on the daily because they didnt take the optimal action. What to do about it?
on the fact of getting a cheaper parachute that has a higher mortality rate death rate than the other that's more expensive and you go with the cheaper one are you liable for someone's death because of that. you would be if you did not disclaim those facts to the people before they buy that product. if you do tell them the facts of the matter they would be the ones that fought and not the distributor because the distributor was straight up and told them hey this has more fatality rate than this one but this is the one we got and then it's up to you whether or not you want to buy it and risk your life to do so. notice most of these questions are in the hypothetical paradox range they're not giving any of the other option which is the other option that stops them from being liable for a person buying their product and dying from it because they were fully informed of the situation. if you fully inform someone about the situation the product and the risk. you are not reliable for them buying it and using it anyways they are.because you have given all the information therefore the option of whether or not they want to risk their lives is up to them because they know only if you do not tell them would it be your fault.
it has to be consensual agreement. of the governed. not a forced one not one where you don't have a choice and then they say you can centrally consented because they lied to you and told you you had to do this stuff when you didn't that's not consensual. and then on top of that the laws have to be consensually agreed upon between the two parties not just one of them being forced onto the other that's awful not a consensual agreement. so no the state has no right to do so. because it's not a consensual agreement in the first place
if they can be proven inside a courtroom that they're guilty then they can be proven outside of courtroom that they can be guilty with the same evidence. you don't need a judge in a courtroom for that. like I said before look at how many have been found guilty have been murdered by putting them to death or literally wasted their lives in jail locked up for 40 years or so or more and then found innocent under the Court's jurisdiction. again your theory of the no courtroom conviction to one that has a courtroom conviction if it's just it's just if it's not it's not and you don't need a courtroom for any of it
I think that the premise is sort of wrong. Because killing someone can never be morally good. It can however be morally right when there is no other choice, or the victim is given no other choice. All human beings have a right to resist, and a right to defend themselves and others from harm, even from governments. Especially when government actors are acting as private persons because they act outside of their mandate, or ignore the rules of their mandate.
What about cases where the power differences are so great that the weaker victim has no other way to stop someone from committing crimes in the future? It might be the only way to prevent future violations.
Aren't the stockholders people resposible for the denials of coverage instead of the CEO? If the CEO made his choices based on ethics instead of profit stockholders would change the CEO to one that considered profit only. Maybe both are resposible, i the this view as preatty reasonable. putting the guilt exclusively on the CEO seems wrong.
Can you make a video about the ethics of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing? Was this act a crime against humanity? If yes, who is to blame? If not, why?
Interesting
hey since you bring up arendt! can you answer if you think that she was a liberal? bc i think she is not...although freedom was one of her primary ideals.... she was not the same as an elightenment thinker on how she approaches it; same with the unabomber; i dont think he was a liberal either, bc there are many other ways to philosophize freedom....i just had a debate with someone online who says that according to right wing thought, there is only one kind of philos of freedom, and that is to be labeled a liberal! i was like... i just read Arendt on this...and i relistened to the audiobook of the unabomber manifesto...and even tho he goes to great lenghts to also be against the left...this person also thought that it was inevitable that his manifesto would lead to all the leftist identity politics... i was like, no wonder no one can have a conversation these days....cant even agree on basic terms
if you are in a situation where you are working for a healthcare organization and they are purposely 9 people unethically an unjustifiably denying people and letting them die. and you representing them working for them and you don't speak out and say something to try and do something about it or decide to stay quiet and keep working for them you are part of them therefore everyone that is a part of it is involved the getaway driver didn't go in and shoot the man behind the counter but isn't he liable for that murder too? people you have to get away from these ideas of thought experiments they are thought experiments is in hypothetical to non-realistic situations that they try and make unsolvable which in reality is not the case and mostly everything and only give you certain options. like Schrodinger's cat here's one is The cat in The box dead because a poison or is it not well you won't know until you open the box and observe it that's not true not true at all you can listen you can wait and see if the cat tries to get out you can do all kinds of things other than looking at that cat is still alive or not one would be the smell of a decaying body which you don't even have to watch the box for so you don't even have to look at the box to know whether or not the cat would be dead or not if the cat was dead in the box if it was a fresh kill you wouldn't be able to smell it right away but you'd be able to know that that cat's making no noise not trying to get out not doing anything so you know that that cat is dead in there like here's another one.now we all know that if we're in an area where a tree falls we can hear that tree fall within a certain area radius. but if you're not there and that tree falls does it still make a sound? but yes yes it does we know this because we've been around and it makes sounds when it breaks and falls to the ground so even if we're not there that sound is still personing from that truck falling tree stupid right these are literally easier than s*** questions to answer in real reality when you put two and two together so let's get away from this paradoxical s*** it's just something to confuse people that's all it is it's a thought experiments are to get you to think in different ways and certain ideologies from one to another so you're not just thinking in one certain form and you're trying to think in multiple forms at one time that's all these are they're not anything to put reality to the actual test which people have been doing ignorantly for who knows how long
❤
if I just to play taking actions in your own hands has a vigilante is somehow not right then how come the government can declare martial law. that is literally vigilante law right there. so there goes your whole theory on that right there narrator.
Uno
putting people at risk for them to die without them knowing it by cutting the emergency cord. if they have to pull that emergency cord that you have cut purposely you have killed them because you are the one that purposely cut the cord that would have could have saved their life I wouldn't say would because they could fail two by itself. so yes you would be at fault because you are the one that cut their emergency cord and did not tell them and they needed that emergency cord whether or not you thought they might need it or not. putting people's lives at risk without without them knowing about it and agreeing to it themselves is your liability now if you disclaim all the disclaimers and tell them hey I cut these emergency chords I don't think you're going to need them but you could need them and give them the choice of whether or not they want to risk their lives on if they have to pull that emergency coordinate not actually being able to work then that is their problem they're the ones that decided that not you. big difference
when that due process is not justly submittable to all under everyone's agreement in general agreement then it is not just and therefore the government is not just the government doesn't follow our Constitution say in America therefore it is not just they rule us under maritime law. that's a jurisdiction of the sea and overseas trade with foreign governments. we're not under our Constitution which is the jurisdiction of limited government that we the people give them. and then state government which is in cahoots with the federal government which is supposed to also be limited bought in cahoots with the federal government they are not. we get taxed by both under two different constitutions even though they rule us under Maritime lawn that are court system in the whole bar association is under is that justified their people are we supposed to be free or born property of the government. do you think you're free here in America.? let me know cuz if you do I can prove you wrong!
If you’re gullible enough to count on insurance you’re responsible for your own death
What other choice do people have in our system? Most people can't save tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in case they become seriously ill.