I absolutely get this statement, but I feel like I’m an exception: “nothing tells you more quickly what socioeconomic class someone belongs to than getting their opinion on Luigi Mangione.”
I don’t earn enough to qualify as middle class in the U.S. or Canada (I’m a dual citizen but now live in Thailand - in part for the accessible, holistic healthcare). But following my spiritual-ethical compass (which is rooted in Buddhism and non-harming), I do not support murder. There is no “what if he deserved it?” rationale for me on this, regardless of how I feel about the broken healthcare and insurance system.
Looking forward to this series; I found you through House Inhabit!
I get that. I grew up working class but am middle class now (I think 🤔). For me the question hinges not on whether murder is OK—I think most decent people agree that it’s not—but whether you characterize what Brian Thompson did as “murder,” too. Some would argue that Thompson was guilty of wide scale “bureaucratic murder,” a term I’ve heard from one of his legal fund’s spokespeople. What do you think of that argument?
For me (and this is just my personal belief - I understand why others might feel differently), even if someone is guilty of murder, I don’t support murdering them. I don’t know enough to say whether Brian Thompson is guilty of “bureaucratic murder,” but that argument seems to imply that we could also accuse certain government leaders, CEOs, and ordinary citizens in specific jobs of similar crimes. Ultimately, that would seem to justify widespread killing and bypass the entire justice system and rule of law - which, I believe, would have many unfortunate consequences and ripple effects.
Yes, the logic of it does give way quickly to who is and isn’t guilty of “bureaucratic murder,” to what degree your actions have to directly cause the deaths, etc.
I think the problem is people see it as, there is no route for holding someone like Brian Thompson accountable. Here’s a man whose policies resulted in an AI model denying 90% of more of claims, resulting in incalculable human harm, pain, suffering, death, and the burden of watching it all for their loved ones, perhaps going bankrupt in the process. But you can’t sue Brian Thompson for murder. There’s no world that exists where he could’ve been “legally” held accountable.
Then you have the matter of, OK, if murder is never OK, even as a response to murder, how do we feel about the death penalty being pursued? (I’m a lawyer so I enjoy making arguments on both sides, not giving you a hard time!) These are the paradoxes of the case that make it so compelling.
I really appreciate the conversation and thinking through all of this! Personally, I do not support the death penalty. But I hear you: there’s a massive issue with amalgamated systems (am I using that term correctly?), where no individual is held responsible, but many individuals within a system are, together, causing great harm. I believe a similar dynamic can work the other way - for good - as well... but that rarely seems to happen once profit is involved.
I’ll also say that even if I believed someone was guilty of “bureaucratic murder,” I don’t support the idea of a twenty-something deciding that on his own and appointing himself judge, jury, and executioner. Wherever someone stands on the death penalty, that seems like a really bad idea to condone and encourage (not saying you’re condoning it, of course!).
I absolutely get this statement, but I feel like I’m an exception: “nothing tells you more quickly what socioeconomic class someone belongs to than getting their opinion on Luigi Mangione.”
I don’t earn enough to qualify as middle class in the U.S. or Canada (I’m a dual citizen but now live in Thailand - in part for the accessible, holistic healthcare). But following my spiritual-ethical compass (which is rooted in Buddhism and non-harming), I do not support murder. There is no “what if he deserved it?” rationale for me on this, regardless of how I feel about the broken healthcare and insurance system.
Looking forward to this series; I found you through House Inhabit!
I get that. I grew up working class but am middle class now (I think 🤔). For me the question hinges not on whether murder is OK—I think most decent people agree that it’s not—but whether you characterize what Brian Thompson did as “murder,” too. Some would argue that Thompson was guilty of wide scale “bureaucratic murder,” a term I’ve heard from one of his legal fund’s spokespeople. What do you think of that argument?
For me (and this is just my personal belief - I understand why others might feel differently), even if someone is guilty of murder, I don’t support murdering them. I don’t know enough to say whether Brian Thompson is guilty of “bureaucratic murder,” but that argument seems to imply that we could also accuse certain government leaders, CEOs, and ordinary citizens in specific jobs of similar crimes. Ultimately, that would seem to justify widespread killing and bypass the entire justice system and rule of law - which, I believe, would have many unfortunate consequences and ripple effects.
Yes, the logic of it does give way quickly to who is and isn’t guilty of “bureaucratic murder,” to what degree your actions have to directly cause the deaths, etc.
I think the problem is people see it as, there is no route for holding someone like Brian Thompson accountable. Here’s a man whose policies resulted in an AI model denying 90% of more of claims, resulting in incalculable human harm, pain, suffering, death, and the burden of watching it all for their loved ones, perhaps going bankrupt in the process. But you can’t sue Brian Thompson for murder. There’s no world that exists where he could’ve been “legally” held accountable.
Then you have the matter of, OK, if murder is never OK, even as a response to murder, how do we feel about the death penalty being pursued? (I’m a lawyer so I enjoy making arguments on both sides, not giving you a hard time!) These are the paradoxes of the case that make it so compelling.
I really appreciate the conversation and thinking through all of this! Personally, I do not support the death penalty. But I hear you: there’s a massive issue with amalgamated systems (am I using that term correctly?), where no individual is held responsible, but many individuals within a system are, together, causing great harm. I believe a similar dynamic can work the other way - for good - as well... but that rarely seems to happen once profit is involved.
I’ll also say that even if I believed someone was guilty of “bureaucratic murder,” I don’t support the idea of a twenty-something deciding that on his own and appointing himself judge, jury, and executioner. Wherever someone stands on the death penalty, that seems like a really bad idea to condone and encourage (not saying you’re condoning it, of course!).
Appreciate your coverage of this, and glad you will be reaching a broader audience!
Thank you, Janine!