I should probably have added that there’s not a lot of consensus in answering any of the questions! Just thought some people might not be aware that the rube goldberg thing is a serious consideration in moral philosophy.

I think in the CEO case it would be quite easy to build a compelling case that he was knowingly hurting others for his own gain on a scale that most people would agree is totally acceptable for one person.

[–] ShareMySims 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Fair enough, I get your point that there is a philosophical question with no consensus on an answer in the kind of example you gave (potentially, unknowingly, unintentionally causing harm to a single individual at some hypothetical point in the future), and that there are interesting discussions to be had about those kinds of situations, but I still maintain that the example bares no relevance to the situation we're discussing here (deliberately, certainly, directly and immediately causing the deaths and suffering of countless people), because as you say yourself, it's quite easy to make the direct link from CEO to deaths.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah there’s really no rube goldberg going on with ceos or politicians enacting inhumane policies

[–] ShareMySims 2 points 6 days ago

Yup, it's more of a thing those in power like to tell themselves to maintain their cognitive dissonance and keep them as far removed as they can from the direct consequences of their actions.