This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.
And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
By your logic everyone who works any job deserves to die. Your logic is not logical.
That’s not implied by their logic at all. Not every person is in a position of power like this CEO was, the majority of people don’t have a job that denies people necessary healthcare, and many people will not make the choice to be unethical like this CEO chose.
I understand, and disagree with, the argument that vigilante justice is completely uncalled for but you’re not doing your argument justice here
Murder is not justified for someone working a job people don’t like.
If someone’s job is to cause death and suffering and they profit from it then yeah maybe they should face the same.
Calling what this guy did for a living “just a job” is absurd.
It’s not his job to cause death. It was his job to run a company.
A company where the stated objective was to prioritize profit at the cost of human life. That’s a job to cause death.
The people working for that company are not likely to be in a position to quit over ethical issues, as they are trying to feed their families, but the CEO of that company made decisions that directly impacted other people lives and likely killed many. If he didn’t want to deny claims for care, he could have resigned. Instead, he profited.
His job was to cause death. As is the job of all for-profit health care companies.
You could say the same thing about a manager at McDonald’s. They don’t deserve to die.
That makes literally no sense
It makes sense. He worked a job, other people work a job. Same thing.
A real life billionaire boot licker I see…
Just Someone who does not believe that people should be gunned down for no reason.
He was gunned down for a reason, I’m not sure what you’re talking about
He was gunned down because the person who assassinated him didn’t like him.
You are seriously missing the point here, and I really can’t tell at this point if you’re trolling or just not expressing yourself clearly. Can you please stop posting the same juvenile, inane comment all over Lemmy? That the gunman “didn’t like” the CEO has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. This is not grade school: nobody called someone else a name, or spread a rumor about someone else, or broke someone’s favorite pencil. We’re not talking about “not liking” someone personally; we’re talking about someone who has committed what amount to crimes against humanity being taken down by a vigilante. The gunman very probably never met nor spoke with the CEO until he shot him.
Now, the potential consequences of widespread vigilantism? That is an interesting and worthwhile topic. And, having seen a half-dozen or so of your comments, I suspect that this is what is actually making you nervous. This was an extrajudicial killing, which is very much against the original decrees of the US (trial by jury, etc). But, maybe we are so far gone due to corruption… Again, this is where the conversation gets interesting.
No this is plain cold blooded pre-meditated murder. The CEO never committed any crimes against humanity.
What would you consider “a reason” then? The man had plenty of reasons.
“I can’t believe they threw me in jail. I pulled a trigger on a gun and shot someone. But other people pull triggers on nail guns all the time and don’t go to jail! It’s the same thing!”
That’s you right now. Two things can be described by the same action but have very different effects, both morally and legally.
Your analogy isn’t logical whereas mine is.
Are you just trolling or what
No
Okay. Would you mind explaining to me why two courses of action being jobs makes them equally okay?
Not all jobs are equal: not in pay, not in proximity to the people who actually carry out the orders of Leadership, not in consequences, not in collaboration with others.
For example, Biden has the authority to stop the transfer of arms to Israel, even after Congress has approved of it. That decision would have much greater impacts on Israel’s ability to carry out their genocide on the Palestinian people.
A McDonald’s manager has no say in weather those arms make it to Israel or not.
Different positions call for different levels of ethical consideration. Maybe the United Healthcare CEO should have considered ethics and morals more when he decided to prioritize profit over human lives.
Consequently, you could also make the same diagnosis for Biden because this whole Israel thing is nuking his legacy.
That’s obviously not their logic. This is hilarious to read.