Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hit men aren't what you think

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 311 posts

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#201

Post by motorest »

nickff wrote: post #27
itsanaccount wrote: post #20

[flagged]

This phrase: "responsible for so many deaths" is doing a lot of work in your post. What is your theory of responsibility? Is it legal or ethical, and if it is the latter (as I would suspect), what framework and criteria is it evaluated under? The answer is easy for a serial killer (obviously responsible for willful murder), a little more difficult for a soldier in war (directly responsible, but perhaps defending them…

> This phrase: "responsible for so many deaths" is doing a lot of work in your post. What is your theory of responsibility?

You can look up the definition of the word "responsibility" to clarify what it means.

You can complement that understanding with the understanding of what are the most basic responsibilities of a CEO, and all the reports about how this specific insurance company implemented official policies to automatically reject access to medical treatment that those who trusted their healthcare provider would desperately need.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#202

Post by motorest »

refulgentis wrote: post #199
itsanaccount wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in philosophy there's something to be said for the difference between action and lack of action when it comes to culpability. Is a surgeon responsible for not being good enough to save a persons life? No, I don't think so. Is a surgeon responsible for not being sober for a planned surgery? In our society, yes. I think a lot of responsibility is determined by mens rea, and when you run a health insurance compa…

if you're saying they actively decide denial rates at management level to hit profit targets, I don't buy it. He has much closer culpability to the CEO of the company that sells me cigarettes than the guy who murdered my grandma. The world is a fallen place. I thought the example up thread re: not being an animal trapper was a Jonathan Swift-esque send up of the whole idea though, so I might be missing a screw or two…

> if you're saying they actively decide denial rates at management level to hit profit targets, I don't buy it.

To believe in that, first you need to believe that somehow any executive of a company has no control over the company, does not have a duty to make certain things are done a certain way, nor is accountable for how the company is managed.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#203

Post by motorest »

avalys wrote: post #41
itsanaccount wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know why I don't work for a trapping and pest control company? Because structurally they kill animals. They go around with tools of destruction and end the lives of animals. Its the function of their existence. Do you know why I don't work for a _for profit_ health insurance company, who's stated goals are explicitly to make profit by slicing out some amount of premiums that are not spent to provide healthcare in…

By this same logic, you are responsible for the death of every person who could have been saved by you donating all of your income beyond basic living expenses (your personal "profit", if you will) to pay for their medical care. You monster! How many people could you have saved! Instead you spend your money on vacations, television, computer games, music, movies, coffee, whatever. Oh, what's that you say? _You_ (who,…

> By this same logic, you are responsible for the death of every person who could have been saved by you donating (...)

A healthcare provider makes a very important but simple offer: you pay us,and in exchange you grant you access to the medical treatments you need when you need it. They commit to provide that service.

If you meet your end of the deal without any flaw and, in the very moment you need them to comply with their own offer, they deny you the service they promised you that you would have, do you agree the are responsible for you not having access to that treatment?

Let's put it another way. Let's say you want to travel to some other place in your town to attend a meeting. You look up a taxi company advertisement, and you call them to arrange a ride. They say sure, you just need to pay us and you'll be taken from point A to B. You arrange your payment and wait for the cab. The cab arrives, but the driver tells you "well, I was looking at the travel plan and I decided I don't feel like driving you there", and drives off with your money. Is that taxi company responsible for you failing to attend the meeting?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#206

Post by kelseyfrog »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #147
kelseyfrog wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Purpose != intent. Besides, no one is saying there is a single intent so refuting that point doesn't exactly a counter.

Purpose is intent. Your post here is just sophistry.

It's not. I'm so sorry, but whoever taught you that was wrong.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#207

Post by erulabs »

As far as I’ve read, historically speaking, most assassinations are crimes of passion. When Japan’s government was “government by assassination” in the early 1900s, most of the assassins were not hired guns but instead true believers. Ultra nationalists who were proud to “die for the cause”.

When evaluating a mystery you need to be careful not to sell yourself on the one that is more titillating, all things being equal. The story that involves unbelievable sadness and anger is usually more likely than the one the involves deception and intrigue.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#209

Post by impossiblefork »

allturtles wrote: post #46
itsanaccount wrote: post #20

[flagged]

Even if we do accept that this executive was responsible for many deaths, you will need to find a law that lets you prosecute him or get one passed. There's a reason we don't just let people murder murderers, even if they have very good moral justification for it.

The problem is that you can't allow certain things to be done to you, and it doesn't matter whether there is no law or if the person in question has immunity, and this means that you must do something about certain sufficient harm to you or collectively to groups in which you are part, whether that harm was inflected legally or not.

But the purpose of courts is to substitute for private vengeance. If they are not willing to do so, this doesn't mean that you have a right to just roll over and die.

If a court says they will not hear you because the person who killed or severely harmed somebody has immunity, or because it has made itself some rule that it feels prevents it from hearing your complaint, then it has made itself irrelevant.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#210

Post by IshKebab »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #76
deadbabe wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fast way to get blackmailed and end up in prison. You need to get connections by ensuring the person recommending you a pro-killer has incentive to ensure you are not discovered.

There's the classic strategy of being vauge-but-clear with one's orders ("Can you deal with this?" "Your Honor, I didn't tell him to kill anyone!") but, disregarding that, it doesn't seem in the employee's best interest. Where does the assistant's $200k/year come from after that? What if the blackmail attempt is rebuffed and the now-former assistant becomes a target for their former employer's new assistant?

https://youtu.be/Q1qKVuf1aFQ?si=siqGgzXS_Yctvh_Z
Post reply on HN