It appears that in every thread about this event there is someone calling everyone else in the thread sick and twisted for not proclaiming that all lives are sacred and being for the death of one individual.
It really is a real life trolley problem because those individuals are not seeing the deaths caused by the insurance industry and not realizing that sitting back and doing nothing (i.e. not pulling the lever on the train track switch) doesn’t save lives…people are going to continue to die if nothing is done.
Taking a moral high ground and stating that all lives matter is still going to costs lives and instead of it being a few CEOs it will be thousands.
You’re absolutely right and I’d argue it boils down to the fundamental error in OP’s shower thought:
Killing the CEO doesn’t save the lives on the other track. It just adds another dead body to the pile.
Killing the CEO doesn’t save the lives on the other track
Why wouldn’t it, though? Every CEO makes a profit/loss calculation in their head. Now they’ve got one more potential entry in their loss column. We’re not talking about saving lives already taken by UHC, but future lives that other CEOs might cost.
We all know that the death of a CEO is a blip in the actual day to day operations in the company. The teams and departments will continue operating as before, and the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
After all, if they’re already doing cost/benefit analysis with human lives, what’s another life of a colleague, versus an insurance beneficiary?
They’ll just beef up personal security, put the cost of that security into their operating expenses, and then try to recover their costs through the business (including through stinginess on coverage decisions or policies).
the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
That only remains true so long as this doesn’t turn into a copycat situation, which it very well might given how numerous the people with motives are, how easy it is to get guns in this country, and how fervently the people of this country are supporting the gunman.
the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
The key word there is ‘remote likelihood’. My point was that if it goes from ‘remote’ to ‘possible’ or ‘likely’, then it will start getting factored into decision making.
what’s another life of a colleague, versus an insurance beneficiary?
There’s a difference once they start considering their own lifes on the line.
They’ll just beef up personal security, put the cost of that security into their operating expenses
Unlike fines, which can be passed off as a cost of doing business, their lives are irreplaceable. And once the logic has been hammered into their heads, it can start influencing their decisions.
