Rule utilitarianism states that “an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good”. Murder as a general is right. The reason is that this murder is just a short-term thing that doesn’t undo all the deaths that have happened. The general abidance to rule of law without self-justice is worth way more than any single person dying in nearly all cases.
In the categorical imperativ Kant argues that you should “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” If it became a universal law that you could kill anyone you deemed evil this would end in a worse result for everybody. Thus it cannot be wanted.
The family and friends around him mourn and the new CEO seems like he is not about to roll over and accept every health insurance claim. The death is dividing citizens which believe he is a hero while others believe he is a murderer. The responsibility off of all those unneeded deaths are claimed by not only the CEO but also by legislators who didn’t account for universal healthcare. It is on the sitting government and parties for not supporting change. It is on the employer partly for not buying a higher premium package that includes more things or choosing a different company with a smaller denial rate. It is on the individual employee inside UH denying claims. It is on upper management like Brian Thompson and the people around him who are at fault for making this worse. And then there’s the stakeholders that don’t press on more ethical practices. Then its also on Americans voting against parties that wish to change the healthcare system in a beneficial way for everybody.
As the head of a company Brian Thompson also had the responsibility to steer it in an ethical way which it seems he did not do. His death has sparked public debate which is a good thing. This does not necessarily mean choosing a murder was the right way of doing things that optimizes utility for everybody.
If the universal law became such that those being systematically exploited and ultimately sickened and or killed by systemic injustice could target those benefiting from the injustice then those incentivizing and committing the act of social murder would be incentivized to rethink their approach to profiting off the death and suffering of poor and marginalized people.
We seem to overlook that FDR’s new deal and the Fair Labor Standards act of 1938 was enacted as a compromise to prevent more violent rioting by the frustrated and exploited laborers during the gilded age. It was either the robber barons acquiesced to what was good for those doing the work giving them a fairer deal or those they were exploiting ruthlessly would have dragged them out into the streets and beaten them senseless or worse in front of their wives and children.
Rule utilitarianism states that “an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good”. Murder as a general is right. The reason is that this murder is just a short-term thing that doesn’t undo all the deaths that have happened. The general abidance to rule of law without self-justice is worth way more than any single person dying in nearly all cases.
In the categorical imperativ Kant argues that you should “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” If it became a universal law that you could kill anyone you deemed evil this would end in a worse result for everybody. Thus it cannot be wanted.
The family and friends around him mourn and the new CEO seems like he is not about to roll over and accept every health insurance claim. The death is dividing citizens which believe he is a hero while others believe he is a murderer. The responsibility off of all those unneeded deaths are claimed by not only the CEO but also by legislators who didn’t account for universal healthcare. It is on the sitting government and parties for not supporting change. It is on the employer partly for not buying a higher premium package that includes more things or choosing a different company with a smaller denial rate. It is on the individual employee inside UH denying claims. It is on upper management like Brian Thompson and the people around him who are at fault for making this worse. And then there’s the stakeholders that don’t press on more ethical practices. Then its also on Americans voting against parties that wish to change the healthcare system in a beneficial way for everybody.
As the head of a company Brian Thompson also had the responsibility to steer it in an ethical way which it seems he did not do. His death has sparked public debate which is a good thing. This does not necessarily mean choosing a murder was the right way of doing things that optimizes utility for everybody.
If the universal law became such that those being systematically exploited and ultimately sickened and or killed by systemic injustice could target those benefiting from the injustice then those incentivizing and committing the act of social murder would be incentivized to rethink their approach to profiting off the death and suffering of poor and marginalized people.
We seem to overlook that FDR’s new deal and the Fair Labor Standards act of 1938 was enacted as a compromise to prevent more violent rioting by the frustrated and exploited laborers during the gilded age. It was either the robber barons acquiesced to what was good for those doing the work giving them a fairer deal or those they were exploiting ruthlessly would have dragged them out into the streets and beaten them senseless or worse in front of their wives and children.