Ethics of Luigi
I'm wondering about the Luigi line.
Post Trump, it seems as if there is no justice for the rich besides vigilante justice.
Would any of the below qualify for a Luigi? Where is the line? I find the cognitive ethical dissonance of Luigi disconcerting.
The following list is very dark, and super cynical - I apologize in advance.
---------
A pharma company has found a cure for cancer, but suppresses it to make money on treatment. Causing innumerable deaths.
A pharma company has found a cure for Alzheimer's - but suppresses it. Causing suffering.
A pharma company knows a drug treatment is ineffective for some major illness, but pushes it anyway, suppressing other research. Causing suffering.
A pharma company pushes a drug known to cause massive dependence, with insignificant benefit. Causing suffering.
A car company knows an airbag is defective, and does not fix it. Causing thousands of deaths.
An airplane manufacturer creates an airplane with faulty construction, knowingly, and thousands die.
A manufacturing company pollutes a town's water, causing birth defects, general sickness.
------------
This list could go on forever of course. But where is the line post Luigi, post Trump non-trial. What makes one CEO at risk, and another not?
I always thought that it is because, after a period, in theory, you would take a slightly longer pause when speaking. Like the break between the last sentence and this sentence in your head.
I wish there was a way to flag users who use ChatGPT to generate answers- and then let me automatically ban anyone above a certain threshold.
Is the script basis written by the original author, is it corporate?
Wow, this is stunning data. People just lost their minds in the pandemic.
What does it say that for a good 30 seconds I thought, "maybe it is the way to go, -could it hurt?" Is this reality now?!