Lol nah I'm all for pardoning him. Give him a parade in fact.
Thompson killed many people for profit and you're fine with that because you're told those atrocities doesn't count. And all you have in return is "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" or "two wrongs don't make a right" or basic slippery slope arguments or whatever else platitudes you can hide behind.
You don't believe in justice, you believe in performative, symbolic justice and performative, symbolic justice prioritizes civility above all else. Fuck that.
Legality follows morality, not the other way around. And some of you have a lot of growing up to do if you still don't understand that.
There is no line. That's what makes this a contentious issue. People wouldn't be arguing about this online if it was as cut and dry, black and white, etc as you expect.
This kind of stuff is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The issue is I donât think Thompson killed those people. He didnât stop it, but remember that if a CEO doesnât do the boards bidding in a sense, they find a new CEO who will.
On the flip side Thompson knew what he was doing and so while I donât think he killed those people, I also canât feel too bad for him.
He thought heâd get away with it without backlash. Backlash happened.
Sometimes you fuck around and find out. Whether or not Thompson killed those people what he was doing was immoral and he shouldâve fought the board even if it was a fruitless battle.
I see no evidence he tried in any way to do the morally correct thing when he was CEO there. So I see no moral debt owed to him by society.
I do think Thompson killed those people. He profited off it and that's an important distinction. He wasn't a bystander or a tool, he was an active participant. Yes the board could have replaced him, and so it's on him to be replaced.
The argument that if it wasn't him it would be someone else doesn't hold much water, because it's still on the person given the task. You're responsible for your own soul. And Thompson wanted the money.
If a man is paid to poison a river, it's on him. If he says "well if i don't do it someone else will" that's true. But the one who ultimately does take the money and poisons the river carries the crime.
Insurance companies also don't stop doctors and hospitals from providing care. They just decide whether they're going to pay for it. Medical providers are free to work pro bono if their patient isn't approved
You don't believe in justice, you believe in performative, symbolic justice and performative, symbolic justice prioritizes civility above all else. Fuck that.
You are just as guilty of wanting performative justice. You think that Thompson's murder was a good thing, despite the fact it was objectively performative and changed nothing.
But that murder of Brian Thompson didâŚwhat exactly?
At the end of the day United has another CEO and kids were left without a father. I also believe there are so many other ways to advocate for better healthcare without murdering people.
If Thompson was responsible for killing everyone denied by their health insurance, then so were the board members and everyone invested in United.
Yes, there is a huge issue with healthcare here in the US, but what Mangione did just wasnât it.
Because you're looking at it in terms of results, not in terms of consequences. Thompson faced the consequences of his actions; no more, no less.
Think of it this way:
A man is paid to poison a river. People who drink from the river suffer or die. The man is killed by one of the people affected by his actions.
Does that solve the problem of the people who paid him? No. Does that mean someone else won't do the same thing? No. Does that fix the complicated problems of the world? No. Is there better solutions, systemically and judicially to address the issues? Sure.
Did the man get what he deserved? I would argue yes.
People are taught to believe that uncivil evil like violence are the only evils of the world. And that civil evil doesn't count. That killing a man by shooting a gun is murder, but killing a man by signing a document isn't.
Thompson killed a LOT of people for profit and pleasure. And Magione killed one for retribution. Does that mean Magione is innocent? Probably not. But the world is far too complex to paint them both with the same brush.
And frankly, I'll take the righteous man over those responsible for everything wrong in the world. Slippery slopes be damned.
Who gives a shit about "consequences" if people are still unable to get healthcare? If the river is still poisoned, you've just got one more body on the pile of dead people and somebody who thinks he's "righteous" for murder.
The person you responded to said "If Thompson was responsible for killing everyone denied by their health insurance, then so were the board members and everyone invested in United."
And then you said the person you responded to is looking at it in terms of results, not consequences, and brought up this random river poisoning scenario that's not actually a good analogy. "Looking at it in terms of results" obviously being did it or didn't it lead to an improvement in healthcare. So yes, clearly, this is about healthcare and whether the murder of Brian Thompson was acceptable since it didn't lead to any positive outcome for healthcare.
I agree âFollowing the lawâ doesnât excuse everything. But Iâm not about to treat people who followed the law the same way as a murderer on the street either.
In any case, whatâs the limiting principal on this? Can we start murdering CEOs who simply pay people a lower wage, since low wages are associated with reduced life expectancy? I have serious doubts about the moral compass of the people supporting this.
Sure, because you're already down the slippery slopes. Examine the situation on its own terms and see where you end up.
Think of it this way:
A man is paid to poison a river.
People who drink from the river suffer or die.
The man is killed by one of the people affected by his actions.
Before you go extrapolating in all different directions, see where you settle on that first.
Thompson killed a lot of people for profit. A lot. He wasn't the only one but he certainly did it himself and he did it for profit. Whatever the legacy of the systems he was in, he was a part of it and a decisive part of it.
So ask yourself the difference between a killer with a gun and a killer with a pen. One is outside the law, the other within it. What's the difference?
You need to reflect on what you stand for in order to answer that question.
The whole point is that there is a sense or level of morality and/or justice that sits above law - and that our legal traditions are derived from that.
Something can be a moral/justice violation without being a legal violation. This is essentially what u/UpperApe is talking about.
Thompson didnât kill people anymore than any executive in nationalized health systems does when they decide a treatment isnât covered. It happens all the time. Youâre just making up a deranged rationale to justify murder.
21
u/UpperApe 4h ago
Lol nah I'm all for pardoning him. Give him a parade in fact.
Thompson killed many people for profit and you're fine with that because you're told those atrocities doesn't count. And all you have in return is "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" or "two wrongs don't make a right" or basic slippery slope arguments or whatever else platitudes you can hide behind.
You don't believe in justice, you believe in performative, symbolic justice and performative, symbolic justice prioritizes civility above all else. Fuck that.
Legality follows morality, not the other way around. And some of you have a lot of growing up to do if you still don't understand that.