Yep, someone might get sick and therefore all this fresh food is going to waste. We can’t make them sick like that, but we are okay with watching them slowly starve to death.
This reminds me of an anecdote that a friend used to explain the actual meaning behind the trolly problem. He said, forget the trolly, you go out to lunch at the local sandwich shop (hoagies or whatever), and you get a foot long, but only eat half. You walk past a homeless man begging for food. If you choose not to give him the food you are now carrying, and that person later dies from starvation, are you morally guilty/at fault for them dying because you could have helped but you didn’t. On the flip side, you give them food, they later choke/vomit it up (aspirating it or choking on it), and that leads to their death. Since you gave them the food that they choked and died from, are you morally guilty of that persons death because they wouldn’t have had anything to choke on if you didn’t give it to them?
This situation with leftovers is the trolly problem made real. Are companies guilty of letting people starve and die, because they don’t want to be found guilty of making them sick (and possibly dying)? Are they, or would they be guilty of either?
Corpos only know that if someone gets sick from the food given out at the end of the day, they can sue. Dead people don’t sue you. So if they starve and die, then they’re not going to sue, but if they get sick but live, they might.
Corpos see this as a very black and white thing. Giving the food away poses an “unnecessary risk” for little to no benefit to the company. So they don’t do it.
Does someone have a definitive answer to this? Do they not want people eating in the parking lot?
They probably don’t want to get sued when someone gets run over or such.
Same bullshit they hide behind when they say they can’t give the leftovers to the unhoused.
Yep, someone might get sick and therefore all this fresh food is going to waste. We can’t make them sick like that, but we are okay with watching them slowly starve to death.
This reminds me of an anecdote that a friend used to explain the actual meaning behind the trolly problem. He said, forget the trolly, you go out to lunch at the local sandwich shop (hoagies or whatever), and you get a foot long, but only eat half. You walk past a homeless man begging for food. If you choose not to give him the food you are now carrying, and that person later dies from starvation, are you morally guilty/at fault for them dying because you could have helped but you didn’t. On the flip side, you give them food, they later choke/vomit it up (aspirating it or choking on it), and that leads to their death. Since you gave them the food that they choked and died from, are you morally guilty of that persons death because they wouldn’t have had anything to choke on if you didn’t give it to them?
This situation with leftovers is the trolly problem made real. Are companies guilty of letting people starve and die, because they don’t want to be found guilty of making them sick (and possibly dying)? Are they, or would they be guilty of either?
Corpos only know that if someone gets sick from the food given out at the end of the day, they can sue. Dead people don’t sue you. So if they starve and die, then they’re not going to sue, but if they get sick but live, they might.
Corpos see this as a very black and white thing. Giving the food away poses an “unnecessary risk” for little to no benefit to the company. So they don’t do it.
Corpos are the worst.