Comment on What is the moral jurisdiction behind not wishing who're rich and in executive positions to die?
danciestlobster@lemmy.zip 1 day agoI’m not sure this is categorically true. If you are in a situation where another person is clearly and obviously killing everyone around you one after the other and you could stop them by killing them, I think most would argue it is morally ok to do so. Same for a situation of like a home invasion where someone means to do immediate harm to your family and loved ones. Murder in self defense is often considered morally ok. When people in the world through their actions are killing people in enormous numbers, it is not too hard to see how someone could make a parallel to self defense.
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 21 hours ago
Sure, but that’s a bit of a motte-and-bailey. It’s like saying that one wishes death for all black people and when challenged they then retreat back to claiming that they were talking about just the ones who rape and murder.
My point is that wishing death for someone simply for being rich and in an executive position is barely different from wishing that to someone because they’re black. It’s unreasonable to be categorically against something purely based on superficial features. It’s a thought-terminating cliché that ignores all nuance and reduces a diverse group of people into a stereotype.
danciestlobster@lemmy.zip 15 hours ago
I basically agree with this, with one important distinction worth mentioning that being black is not a willful choice, but having billions of dollars absolutely is. I would argue that if someone has so much money there is no possible way for them to spend it all in their and their progeny’s lifetime, the only ethical thing to do is give the excess that can’t be spent away.
In general, though, I understand not all ultra wealthy are equally bad, and those who just inherited their money and sit on it aren’t anywhere near the level of those that actively influence policy for the negative. Yes there is nuance there, and yes stereotyping the whole group is reductive.
The general sentiment in OPs comment is usually rooted to in the notion that there is really no way to run a business that makes billions of dollars without underpaying or overcharging people along the way, and there is no way to justify having 100bn+ dollars all for yourself when there are so many people without. If that means those offences are extreme enough to justify murder is another question, and I agree should probably not apply categorically to all rich people equally with no deeper discussion.