This is a genuine question.

I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.

P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.

And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.

  • mke_geek@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    17 days ago

    It’s not his job to cause death. It was his job to run a company.

    • korazail@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 days ago

      A company where the stated objective was to prioritize profit at the cost of human life. That’s a job to cause death.

      The people working for that company are not likely to be in a position to quit over ethical issues, as they are trying to feed their families, but the CEO of that company made decisions that directly impacted other people lives and likely killed many. If he didn’t want to deny claims for care, he could have resigned. Instead, he profited.

      His job was to cause death. As is the job of all for-profit health care companies.

      • mke_geek@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        17 days ago

        You could say the same thing about a manager at McDonald’s. They don’t deserve to die.